F 68 




.1167 


||||||||T^|»)L^||||g||j||U^ 


copy 3 






Class ^^ Si 
BooIc^AJ^ 



0^.^ 



HARVARD THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 

IX 

AN ANSWER TO 
JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 

BY A PURITAN FRIEND 

:^C0 fr FIRST T ublished 

FROM A .MANUSCRIPT OF ^.T). i6og 

EDITED BY 

CHAMPLIN BURRAGE 

SOMETIME LIBRARIAN OF MANCHESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD 




CAMBRIDGE 
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS 

LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD 

Oxford University Press 
1920 



/r 
l^i% 



HARVARD THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 



HARVARD 
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 



EDITED FOR THE 

FACULTY OF DIVINITY 

IN 

HARVARD UNIVERSITY 



BY 

GEORGE F. MOORE, JAMES H. ROPES, 
KIRSOPP LAKE 




CAMBRIDGE 
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS 

LONDON: HUMPHREY MttFORD 
OxioBO Ukiveksity Prxss 

1920 



HARVARD THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 

IX 

AN ANSWER TO 
JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 

BY A PURITAN FRIEND 

:NiOlV FIRST TUB LI SHED 
FROM A ^^CJNUSCRIPT OF <^.T>. l6og 

EDITED BY 

CHAMPLIN BURRAGE 

SOMETIME LIBRARIAN OF MANCHESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD 



w 



CAMBRIDGE 
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS 

LONDON : HUMPHREY Mn^FORD 

OxpoRD University Press 

1920 



C>' 







COPYRIGHT, 1920 
EIARVABD UNIVERSITY PRESS 






^c>-/2/Jy 



DEDICATED 

TO THE CHURCH OF ST. ANDREW, NORWICH 

AS A CONTRIBUTION TO 

THE HISTORY OF ITS NOTABLE PAST 



PREFACE 

§ I. THE MANUSCRIPT 

The manuscript of which the complete text is here published for 
the first time is catalogued as MS. Jones 30, in the Bodleian 
Library, Oxford, where it has lain for over two hundred years. 
The book is a neat little volume, perfectly preserved, containing 
one hundred and fifty-eight written pages, and is bound in limp 
vellum delicately ornamented with gilt. From the author's 
" Advertisement " we learn that this is not the original manu- 
script, but a contemporary copy (containing one additional main 
section), evidently made for the author before the Answer was 
sent to John Robinson at Leyden, and not long after the original 
composition. The transcript is anonymous and undated. The 
copyist wrote an unusually fine, clear hand for the period, and 
executed his work with the greatest care. Toward the end the 
handwriting is much finer than at the beginning. The author's 
prefatory note, which he styles "An Advertisement of the An- 
swerer servinge for Introduction," is in his own hand. He has 
also carefully indicated in the margin which sections are quoted 
from Robinson, and which are his answer, has added one or two 
references, and corrected the spelling of a few words. 

The author gave the transcript no special title — a circum- 
stance which suggests that it was not intended for pubHcation — 
but on the back of the binding he wrote a few words, now partly 
illegible. They are probably: 

AN ANSWfER] 
TO MR. ROB- 
INSON MS. 

Inside the back cover the author also wrote the following instruc- 
tions, presumably for the messenger to whom he entrusted the 
manuscript, " This booke is to bee sent eyther to Readinge im- 
mediately [i.e., direct] or by way of London by Mr. Thurlbie 
meanes who dwells at the Black Boy in Southwark." 



viii PREFACE 

Other contemporary marginal notes, referring to several pub- 
lications by or concerning the Brownists, were also made in the 
transcript by a third person; and, apparently at a somewhat 
later period, a reader has changed the spelling of one word. With 
these exceptions the document seems to be in the same condi- 
tion today as at the beginning of the seventeenth century. 

§2. ITS HISTORY 

The occasion for writing the Answer is explained in the author's 
" Advertisement." After the removal of John Robinson and 
his congregation from Amsterdam to Leyden in 1609, but prob- 
ably not long after that event, the writer, a former friend of 
Robinson's, appears to have come to Amsterdam and there, in 
conversation with Matthew Slade, to have " be way led " Rob- 
inson's " falUnge of from the Churche of England," expressing 
at the same time his desire to "speake with him." Slade gave 
notice of this to Robinson, who wrote to his old friend, and " pro- 
pounded certayne reasons for his seperation." The friend re- 
joined with a cordial letter, in which he " desyred him to frame 
his argument logically " (i.e. syllogistically) ,^ and in particular 
to discuss " his seperation from that churche or parishe of St. 
Andrewes in Norwich of which he had lately beene a minister." 
" Hereupon he wrote his objections," and in reply the anony- 
mous friend framed the present Answer, in which the text of 
much of Robinson's letter was incorporated. The note quoted 
above, written on the inside of the back cover of the volume, 
doubtless means that this copy was at some time sent to Read- 
ing, perhaps to some old Cambridge friend there beneficed whose 
approval the author desired. 

' It is noteworthy that the published writings of John Robinson are abnost en- 
tirely lacking in forms of expression which would suggest that he had had a uni- 
versity education, and this circumstance has raised a doubt whether he could have 
been a Cambridge graduate. Our manuscript plainly proves that he understood, 
and could use, syllogistic argument, while the following citation from Thomas 
Helwys, A Short Declaration of the Mistery of Iniquity, 161 2, no doubt explains 
why Robinson did not generally employ scholastic methods of reasoning in his 
books: " It were to be wished, and you have often bene required, to lay away 
your schoole tearmes in the causes of God, whereby you do for the most part but 
hide the truth, and blind the eies of the simple " (page 138). 



PREFACE ix 

Whoever the person at Reading was to whom the manuscript 
was first sent (doubtless from Holland), it may well have come 
eventually into the possession of Samuel Fell (1584-1649),^ dean 
of Christ Church and Lady Margaret professor at Oxford, who 
was rector of Sunningwell,^ near Abingdon, Berks, after Sept. 21, 
1625, and resided there from 1647 till his death in 1649. At his 
death the manuscript would have passed into the library of his 
son. Dr. John Fell (162 5-1 686), who was born at Sunningwell. 
Dr. John Fell likewise became dean of Christ Church, and finally 
bishop of Oxford. It is known that at Dr. Fell's death some of 
his books became the property of his nephew Henry Jones, like- 
wise rector of Sunningwell, and our manuscript was probably one 
of these. At the close of the seventeenth century the library of 
Mr. Jones was one of the notable English private collections. 
Among his manuscripts this transcript was catalogued as No. 52 
in " Catalogi Librorum Manuscriptorum AngUae et Hiberniae in 
Unum Collecti," Oxford, 1697, with the title, " An Answer to 
Robinson the Brownists Arguments." In 1707 Mr. Jones died, 
and many of his manuscripts, including this one (MS. Jones 30), 
came to the Bodleian Library. 

§3. THE AUTHOR 

Unfortunately, as stated above, the manuscript is anonymous, 
and the author has so concealed his identity, possibly for his own 
protection, that it is doubtful whether he can ever be identified 
with certainty. The handwriting of the " Advertisement " 
may, however, offer a clue. From the work itself we can gather 
a few facts concerning him. We learn that he was a friend of 
Robinson, and that he was a logician able to turn about as he 
pleased his opponent's rather loosely framed syllogisms, chiding 
him at times that a university man should reason so poorly. We 
may fairly infer that our author was an Oxford or Cambridge 
graduate. He also manifests such an intimate knowledge of St. 
Andrew's, Norwich, as would indicate that he either was a native 
of that city, or at least had lived there. 
The author had evidently been in active service as a minister 

' See the Dictionary of National Biography for the lives of Samuel Fell, John 
Fell, and Henry Jones. ^ Sunningwell is about thirty miles from Reading. 



xii PREFACE 

effect that Robinson's withdrawal from the Church of England 
was not entirely voluntary, but in some measure enforced. 

6. It gives the only direct evidence still in existence that Rob- 
inson was acquainted with, and made use of, syllogistic, or scholas- 
tic, methods of reasoning, such as prevailed among university 
men in his time. 

7. It throws an interesting light on the controversy which 
took place in 1618 between Robinson and John Yates, minister 
since 1616 of St. Andrew's Church, Norwich, and shows how 
naturally such a controversy arose. It suggests, too, that Mr. 
Yates was only carrying on a written discussion with Robinson 
concerning laymen's use of " prophecy," in which William Euring 
acted as messenger; and that the expression Mr. Yates's " Mo- 
nopolie" was not the title of a printed book by Yates, as Dr. 
Dexter seems to have thought, or even the title of Yates's man- 
uscript, but rather a name which Robinson himself applied to 
the circumscribed outlook of his opponent's argument. 

8. It presents an illustration of a type of Congregationalism 
practised within the Church of England before the time of 
Robert Browne and Robert Harrison. Such churches as St. 
Peter Mancroft and St. Andrew's, Norwich, purchased the 
patronage and so obtained the right to elect their own ministers. 
Browne probably derived many of his ideas on Congregational 
church polity from study and criticism of these two churches 
during his sojourn in Norwich. In Browne's time John More was 
the incumbent of St. Andrew's and it is to him that Browne 
undoubtedly refers in '* A Trve and Short Declaration," where 
he mentions Mr. More, a Puritan minister. 

A fuller discussion of these and other details of Puritan history 
upon which this Answer to Robinson bears will be found in the 
present editor's pamphlet. New Facts concerning John Robinson, 
Pastor of the Pilgrim Fathers, Oxford, at the University Press, 
1910. For permission to use in the present volume material 
already printed in the former publication and for the use of the 
plate appearing as frontispiece the editor would make grateful 
acknowledgment to Mr. Humphrey Milford of the Oxford 
University Press. 



PREFACE xiii 

9. Since the publication of New Facts concerning John Robinson, 
Mr. F. W. Haldenstein, of Christ Church, Oxford, has brought to 
light the following interesting entry in the accounts of the Great 
Hospital, Norwich, for 1 601/2: 

Item to Mr John Robynson for preachinge iiii sermons xxx^ & to Mr 
Mayor, Shreve & certain other persons of the saide Bishops guifte x^ in all 
xP 

This helps us to trace the early life of John Robinson of 
Leyden a little more definitely. It would now appear that in 
1601/2 he was either settled in Norwich, or had begun to visit 
that city, as a Hospital and perhaps City preacher. Robinson 
was, as we know, ordained in or before the year 1602. His mar- 
riage took place on February 15, 1603/4, and his work in con- 
nection with St. Andrew's, Norwich, began probably about that 
time. 









■*15i jr- 



^>I4 *■- 



^ -^ jr 



i** - 






>£ 






•I ^i 



ii 






r,2 






,:A 



\. ^ 



^ 












h>. • 



."^'j: 



£ ,* 



-^ i^> 















/•fc 



- _^4 : 



•c 'S 



Xl 



•I ^ 






>^ 



'l f' >'-!.'i '31 






1^ 




X 



O "^ 

o "^ 

o t: 

H ^ 

Pi Si 

§ -i 

S I 

w I 

o i 



NOTE 

The main text of the manuscript was written by the copyist, who uses 
the secretarial hand of the period, distinguishing by Roman script 
marginal headings, quotations from the Bible, and occasionally other 
words. In the printed text this use of Roman script is not indicated. 

The quotations from Robinson, as well as certain parts of sentences 
in the Answer, are underlined in the manuscript, and all these are here 
printed in italics. 

The "Advertisement of the Answerer" prefixed to the Answer is in 
the handwriting of the author. He has also made some notes in the 
margin of the Answer, which in the printed text are indicated by an 
asterisk (*). 

A third person has also made notes in the margin. These are here 
distinguished by square brackets ([ ]). 

In some instances it is not possible to tell with certainty whether 
a note is due to the author or to the third person. These are desig- 
nated by two asterisks (**). 

With the exception of a few small corrections, the only additions to 
the manuscript were made in the margin. 

It has not been attempted to present a diplomatically exact edition 
of the manuscript in all particulars. The spelling of the original has 
been preserved, but, in the interest of modern readers, the punctuation 
and use of capitals have been modified, and the abbreviations gener- 
ally extended. 



An advertisement of the answerer 
servinge for introduction 

Mr Robinson sometimes a preacher in Norwich fell to Brown- 
isme & became a pastor to those of the seperation at Leyden. 
I bewayled to Mr Slade of Amsterdam this his fallinge of from 
the Churche of England, wishinge that I mighte speake with him. 
Vppon notice hereof Mr Robinson wrote to me & propounded 
certayne reasons for his seperation. I returned a letter praying 
him to interpret my speeche to Mr Slade, not as a chalenge but 
a fruit of my auncient love to him, confessed my greife for his 
rupture from the churche, desyred him to frame his argument 
logically, & that (because the woorde churche is of sondry signifi- 
cations) one question myghte bee of his seperation from that 
churche or parishe of St Andrewes in Norwich of which he had 
lately beene a minister. Herevppon he wrote his obiections, & I 
(after a time) myne answeare, & sent it to him written [?] to- 
geather with his reply as foUowes. 



Right welcome was your letter vnto me (beloved Sir) both for Robinson 
your owne sake &'for the truthes into which it maketh so open an 
entrie for enquirye. The time you tooke for answere needes {as 
you see) none excuse with me, which I doe instifie, by vseyngfar 
greater liber tie my self, though vpon other occasion./ 

Sir, as I had noe oportunitie to answere your letters till my re- Answer 
turne out of England, soe haue I mett with some extraordinarye 
businesses since my returne, which haue made my answere to 
you more slowe then had beene fitte, of which you will excuse 
me, seeyng youre self tooke not much lesse tyme for answere to 
a farre shorter letter of myne./ 



And for the mencion you made of me to youre freinde, I doe Robinson 

interpret it even as you desyre I should, onelye intimatyng, that 

my forsaking the church of England was noe rupture {as you 

speake) but an inforced departure, vpon the most advised deliber- 

acions I could possiblye take, eyther with the Lord, by humblyng 

my self before him, or with men, for whose advice I spared neyther 

cost nor paines, but sought out in everye place the most sincere 

and iudicious in the land for resolucyon to the contrary e, as both 

God &° men can witnes with me, but with what efect the yssue 

manifesteth, and soe I passe to the clearyng of the state of the 

question./ 

Whether you were dryven out by compulsion or by conceyte Answer 
therof shall appeare vpon the tryall of youre motyues, yet might 
your departure be called a rupture, seeyng you brake those bondes 
of socyetye with which the church sought to haue conteyned 
you; even he that is dryven thereto male make a rupture. 
That you sought conference I haue heard, but that you sought 
resolucyon to the contrarye of that you followe, noe man can 
witnes, for whoe knowes your hearte ? And yf your spirit had 
beene soe humble as might haue become your age, learning, or 
anye grace you haue receyued, the iudgment of those most sin- 
cere and iudicious men would haue restreyned you, for whoe are 
you, that God should be thought to open vnto you such a pointe 



4 AN ANSWER TO 

hidden from soe sincere and iudicyous men as you consulted and 
then cast of ?/ 

And what though you bestowed manie prayers vpon your self 
after your hearte had admitted this passion, partiallitye, and 
preiudice, might it not be iust with God to answere you with 
your owne delusions, seyng you durst call into questyon the 
truth of his worship and presence in those Churches in which 
you had eyther beheld the beautie thereof or dissembled ?/ 
When we settle not in a manifest truthe but praye still for reso- 
lucyons, the Lord male iustlye disgrace vs and oure prayers 
wherein we seeme to beseech him to change himself./ 
Oure prayers sometymes are answered, as was Ahimaas' sute to 
Joab, with what we would haue, and not with what is most con- 
venient. Otherwise, of those that are devout, none should erre 
in iudgment, for all praye for direction./ 



Robinson 



*The proper forme 
gives existence as 
well as essence. 
Zabarella: De 
Constitutione 
Individui, cap. 5.^ 



Answer 



The sundrie acceptions of the word Church by you laid downe I 
acknowledg for good and to he found in the scriptures, but not 
them alone, for besides these by you named, the churche is some- 
tymes taken indeflnitelye for manye, or nil particuler Churches, 
because manye or all are but one in nature, forme, definition, 
essentiall partes, & propertyes, though not in existence,* for soe 
they are as manye Churches, as they are particuler assemblyes 
ecclesiasticall, &" spirituall society es, and in this sence Paule 
speaketh i. Cor. 12. 28, in which report also in another place 
he sayth, There is one fayth d* one baptisme, Eph. 4. j, and 
this acception of the word Church wilbe of good vse for the ques- 
tion in hand./ 

Your acception of the word Church allso indefinitelie, or rather 
coUectiuelye, for all or manie Churches as beyng of one nature, 
&c., I willinglye admitte, but your proof e thereof out of the i . Cor. 
12. 28 I refuse, for yf by Church there is meante all particuler 
Churches, then all particuler Churches must be capeable of the 

^ Jacobus Zabarella was an Italian philosopher, born at Padua September 5, 1533, 
died October, 1589. He published various works, among which may be noted: 
Derebus naturalibus libri XXX, isg^; Logica, isgj; De omnia, 1606. An account 
of his life and works may be found in Gerolamo Boccardo, Nuova enciclopedia 
Ilaliana (6th ed.), Vol. XXIII, Torino, 1888. 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 5 

endowmentes there mencioned as ordeyned to the Church there 
spoken of, namelye Apostles, evangelists, & doers of miracles, 
seeinge these are there said to be ordeyned of God to the Churche 
there spoken of./ 

The instance you propound for the specyall subiect of the questyon Robinson 
in hand I agree to, which is St Andrewes in Norwich, whereof 
indeed I was sometymes a minister {as you saie), but neuer anie 
member, having my house standyng {which is the infallible de- 
terminacion of members) within another parish, and my children 
baptized there, which was and is one parte of the confusion of 
that Church from which I am seperated./ 

If you were a minister of St Andrewes parish, it is as much as I Answer 
said. Yf you were not a member thereof, you might haue beene. 
Habitacyon in a parish is not an infallible argument of a member 
of the congregacyon symplye, but rather a probable and ordi- 
narye one, and in the peaceable state of Churches a convenient 
waie. Nowe yf this, that beyng minister in one parish you make 
your self a member of another, was confusion, you that made this 
fault ought to be blamed for it./ 

Onelye I must craue leaue to denie that which you take for Robinson 
graunted, wherein indeed a greate parte of the questyon lyeth, &° 
that is, that St Andrewes Church is in it self a distinct 6° entyer 
Church or ecclesiasticall pollicye {which all true Churches are), 
but it is on the contrarye a member of a diocesan, provinceall, &• 
nationall church, and that in the verye frame and constitution of 
it vnder the diocesan, provinceall, and nationall bishops &° other 
officers, which I am sure you will not denie. Wherevpon, I doe 
ground my first argument thus. 

I said not that St Andrewes Church is in it self an entyer church Answer 
or ecclesiasticall pollicye, but that it is a distincte and particuler 
Church, &c., and he that confoundes distinct & (in your sense) 
entyer & makes a particuler Church and ecclesiasticall pollicye to 
be all one, forgettes to distinguish, & vnderstands not himself./ 
And when you add that I will not denie St Andrewes to be a 
member of a diocesan Church, in that it is vnder a diocesan 
Bishop, you doe with one breath challeng me to haue taken for 



AN ANSWER TO 



Robinson 
Argument i. 



granted that the contrarye whereof you saie I will not denye. 
And thus I come to the question, which is this/. 
St Andrewes parish in Norwich is a trewe church of Christe, with 
which a Christian man maie lawfullye comunicate in the worship 
of God./ Against which assertion of myne you thus dispute./ 

Noe man maie comunicate with, or he a member of, a false 
Church; but every e member of St Andrewes comunicates with, 
and is a member of, a false Churche./ 

Ergo, noe man maie be a member of St Andrewes Church or 
comunicate therewith in the worship of God./ 
The first proposition is vndenyable./ 
Answer The first proposition is not simplye true, and therefore not 
vndenyable, for you make it all one to comunicate with, and to 
be a member of, a Church, (as your disiunctiue, or, doth mani- 
fest), which is absurd and vntrue, in as much as not everye 
comunicating doth make one to be a member of the Church. An 
heathen man maie communicate with the Church in hearyng of 
[i. Cor. 14. 24.] the word preached and yet is not therebye a member of the 
Church./ 

Secondlye, when you saie one maie not comunicate with a false 
church, it is not simplie true, although some comunion with a 
false Church is vnlawfuU, yet not everye comunion therewith. 
The Apostles and Christians did lawfullye comunicate in some 
thinges with the Jewish Sinogogue, even after it became a false 
Church reiectyng the Messiah, as in circumcision, purification, 
absteyning from blood, & strangled, resortyng to the Temple, 
&c.. Act. 21. 24; 16. 3. Your first proposition, therefore, so 
much boasted of, is not sound, but let vs trie the second./ 

Robinson The second proposicion is thus proued. 

That everye member in St Andrewes Churche is a member of, 6* 
comunicates with a nationall, provinceall, and diocesan Church, 
both mediatelye vnder nationall, provinceall, &• diocesan Churche 
governnours in their correspondent government, and immediatlye 
in standyng a member of that particuler Church, which is a 
member of a diocesan, provinceall, 6* nationall Church, &• so, 
beyng a member of the member, must needes be a member of the 
whole, cannot be denyed./ 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



Thus you reason, everye member of St Andrewes is a member 
of a diocesan, or provinceall Churche, therefore of a false Church./ 
To make good this argument you haue two thinges to proue, 
first that everye member of St Andrewes is a member of a 
provinceall Church; secondlye, that a provinceall Church is a 
false Church./ 

The first you proue thus. — He that is both mediately and imedi- 
atelie vnder a provinceall Churche governoure is a member of a 
provinceall churche./ 

But soe is everye member of St Andrewes parishe./ 
I answere, that in the same sense in which wee doe acknowledge 
a provinceall Church, in the same he is a member of it; that is, 
not simpUe nor properUe, as the name of Church importeth, one 
onelye congregacyon combyned in the worship of God. But lett 
vs heare howe you can proue that a provinceall Church is not a 
true Church, takeyng leaue first to sett downe in what sense all 
the Churches of a province male be called one Churche, that yf 
you take covert vnder the ambiguitye of phrases, we male beate 
you thence./ 

Manye particuler Churches in a province maye possibl[i]e drawe 
into one generall assemblie, and then they are made properlie 
one Church, for that tyme. 

Secondlie, manie particuler Churches maie send their deputyes 
& comittyees to one assemblie in their names, and this assemblie 
out of a province is a provinceall representatiue churche, as Solo- 
mon's assemblie, i. King. 8, is called the congregacyon of all 
Israeli, because it was drawen out of all the tribes to the dedi- 
cacyon of the temple./ 

Thirdlye, manie particuler Churches combyning in one forme of 
hohe profession & vnder one manner of regiment, maie be called 
one in respect of that bond of their vnyon, in such sense as wee 
call the manye churches of seuerall kingdomes one Churche, as 
of England, Scotland, Fraunce, or the Belgian Churche, which 
sense is not farre from that which you graunted and is found in 
the scripture, as where the Apostle saith, Eph. 3. 21, To whome 
be praise in the Churche throughe all generations. He meanes, 
in the Churches which he names in the singuler number, one 
Churche, for that they were in theire essencyall forme but one, 



Answer 



[One in number] 



[One in analogic] 



[One in kinde & in 
consent.] 
*Unum dicitur 
quattuor modis; 
analogia, genere, 
specie, numero. 
Aristoteiis caput 
12. lib. 5 Metapli. 



8 



AN ANSWER TO 



as your Mr Answoorth sayes that all particuler churches are 

essentiallie but one. 

So then, those Churches which properlye & simplye are not one 

but manye, maie yett in some sense be one, as all Christians are 

in some sense one, and all men are in some sense but one man, 

that is one kinde of men./ 

Now let vs heare howe you will proue a provinceall Church a 

false Churche./ 

Robinson First, that a particuler Church is the onelie true spirituall 
pollecye {&" so neyther diocesan, provinceall, nor nationall 
Churche), apearethe thus, where there were in the newe Testament 
in one countrie more then one particuler assemhlie, there the 
scripture speakes of them as of so manie distincte &° entyre 
Churches, Revel, i. ii; Gal. i. 2, And so ludea, which vnder the 
ould Testament was hut all one Church or rather hut one parte of 
a Church haveing one highe preist, one Temple, one altar, one 
sacrifice, hath in the newe Testament sundrie Churches in it, 
Actes p. 57; Gal. i. 21./ 

Answer If by pollecye you meane the spirituall boidye or incorporacyon of 
those which are ioyned in holye profession, then Church and 
spirituall pollecye is all one. Yf you meane by pollecye the forme 
of government which this socyetye embraceth, then spirituall 
pollecye & Church differ, as much as a comonwealth and the 
lawes of it, which are distinct thinges, yett you confound them./ 
If, then, you will not mock vs with ambiguitye of wordes, you 
must by spirituall pollecye (in this argument) meane noe more 
then is meant by Church, and then your argument is this./ 

A particuler Church or congregacion is the onelie true Church. 
Ergo, a provinceall Church {conteyning manie particulers) is a 
false Church./ 

Howe proue you that a particuler Church is the onelie true 
Church ? Because (forsoothe) the scripture still speakes of par- 
ticuler Churches, as to the 7 churches of Asia, not to the Church of 
Asia, againe the Churches of Galatia, the Churches of ludea, not 
one Church as vnder the lawe, hut manie Churches. Excellent. 
And were these particuler Churches, therefore, true Churches 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 9 

because theye were particuler Churches ? or because they em- 
braced the true worship of God ? Marke what you saie before 
you answere me, for yf you assigne this particularitie to be the 
cause, then noe particuler Church can be a false Churche. Yf 
you dare not affirme this particularitie of their beyng, or entyrenes 
of pollecye, to be that which made them to be true Churches, 
then haue you plaid the sophister in disputyng, a non causa, pro [Et ab accidenti] 
causa, as one should saie: A particuler Christyan is a true mem- 
ber of Christes bodye, therefore a Christyan congregacyon is not 
a member of Christes bodye./ 

And yf you will argue well from the title of Church conferred 
vpon everye of the particuler assemblyes, all you can inferre is 
this: A particuler assemblie alone is properlie one Church, 
therefore a provinceall Churche consistyng of manie is not 
properlie one Churche, but after a sorte, which to the poynte of 
the truthe or falshood of a Churche is neyther too not froo./ 
Secondlye, your proofes fayle you, for they doe not showe that 
the name of Church is gyven onelie to a particuler congregacyon 
but that is often gyven thereto, for the name is also vsed in the 
singuler number for all particuler Churches that shalbe, Eph. 3. 
21, and for the vniuersall which consistes of all the particulers, 
Math. 16. 18./ 

Whence I thus inverte, Yf all the particuler Churches of all 
places and tymes are called and are one Church in some respecte, 
and yf the vniuersall comprehendyng all particulers is yet in some 
sense called one and is but one, then all the Churches of one na- 
tion, province, or dioces maie be, & maie be called, in some sense 
one nationall, provinceall, & diocesan Church./ 
Thirdlie, I answere that it cannot be proved that the seauen 
churches of Asia, or Church of Jerusalem & the like, was one 
onehe congregacyon (of which we shall hereafter consider further), 
but it maie be thought that, beyng vnder one government (though 
devided into seuerall Assemblies), they are called the Churche 
of such or such a cittie, as nowe in the Dutch churche of Amster- 
dam, Leyden, and that of Geneva, &c./ 

Fourthlie, that which you conceite and would insinuate by the 
waie in the darke tearmes of spirituall pollecye, namelie that the 
particuler Churches had all ecclesiasticall regiment entire within 



lO 



AN ANSWER TO 



*Your owne Mr 
Clifton maintaines 
that in matter & 
essential forme the 
Churches vnder 
the olde Testa- 
ment & newe are 
alike. Plea for 
Infants, page 67. 

Robinson 
2. Reason. 



them selues, and therefore were not diocesan Churches, is 
vtterUe confuted by the places you alleadge. For were not all 
the Churches of ludea vnder the Apostles' Jurisdiction ? and so 
of Asia, as those of Creta, vnder Titus his superintendencye ? 
Wherefore, yf subiection to a provinceall governour doe make a 
provinceall Church (as you haue assumed), then were the 
Churches of ludea a provinceall Churche & the Churches of 
Creta./ 

So I maie thus invert this argument vpon you. The Churches of 
Creta (as beyng vnder a provinceall governoure) were one 
provinceall Church. 

But the Churches of Creta were a true Church. 
Therefore some provinceall Church is a true Churche./ 
As touching that you admit [?] of ludea that it was but one, or 
piece of one, particular Churche vnder the Lawe, as it is in some 
sense true, in as much as they all depended on one temple, preist, 
&c., so is it in some other respect most false, for Judea was de- 
vided into sundrye particuler and seuerall sinogogues, which 
were true particuler Churches, and manye, not one, and of them 
Christe said. Tell the Church, for this commaundement was gyuen 
to be vsed when Christ deliuered it, when the sinogogues stood./ 
Out of which one maie thus dispute, Yf the true visible Churches 
of the lewes, beyng manye, were yet in some respecte but one 
national! Church, then maie it agree to the nature of a true 
Churche that manye particuler Churches be in some respect one 
nationall Churche, but soe it was to the lewes./ Ergo. 
The antecedent cannot be denied; the consequent standes good, 
inasmuch as whatsoeuer is simplye and in the kinde thereof 
essencyall to the beyng of a true Church of God stands allwaies 
vnalterable in the middest of all other changes. Let vs nowe 
come to your second reason brought to proue that a provinceall 
Church is a false Churche./ 

There is one bodye or Church, that is one kinde of Church, 
Eph. 4. 4, where, yf both particuler and diocesan b' provinceall 
&* nationall Churches were true Churches, there were diuers 
kindes of Churches, one comprehending another vnder it./ 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN II 

First, you corrupt the text with a false glosse and offer that vnto Answer 
vs for the word of God, for the one bodye there spoken of is the 
vniuersall Church, which is the misticall bodye of Christe, con- 
sistyng of and conteyning all and oneUe the elect of God, quickned 
by that one spiritt there mencioned, and this is but one from the 
beginning to the end of the world. This you perverte when you 
drawe it to a particuler Church, and then to helpe your self 
interpret one, by one kinde, by kinde also vnderstandyng one out- 
ward forme of regiment, wherefore this place rightlye interpreted 
quites it self of your handes, nor onelie so, but is dyrectlie against 
your collection, for yf by one bodye we vnderstand the vniuersall 
Church of Christe which is but one, of which the particuler 
Churches (as touching the sincere partes therof) are members, 
then doth it followe that there are diuers kindes of Churches, one 
comprehending another, in as much as there is one that com- 
prehendeth all others./ 

But suppose that by bodye was meante an owtward visible or 
particuler Church, and that by one were ment one kinde in 
respect of the essencyall forme, definition, and nature, will it 
thence followe that there male not be in anie sense another 
kinde of Church ? Verelye, noe. Noe more then it will followe 
that there is but one kinde of baptisme or one kinde of god in 
anie sense, because he sayth one baptisme, one God, for the bap- [Mat. 3. n.] 
tisme he speaketh of there you take to ymport the externall [Mat. 20. 22. 1 
sacrament of baptisme, yet is there another kinde of internall 
baptisme of which Christ himself is the minister, and there is a 
baptisme also by affliction, which are other kindes, yea a bap- [Math. 21. 25. j 
tisme of doctrine which comprehendes that of water vnder it. [Act. 18. 25. & 

So are there other kindes of gods then the true God, for he said, I f^- ^'^ 

[Psal. 82. 6.1 
haue said, yee are gods. There be, saith Paul, manye gods and r^ q'^^. g . i 

manye lords, which are other kindes of gods, that is, not simplie, 

nor in such a sense, as oure God is one, but in another meanyng, 

and in that meaning true, for magistrates are not false gods, 

but not properhe soe. In Uke manner, there is one kinde of 

Church, that is, a particuler congregation drawen together into 

covenant with God, &c. Yet there male be also manye other 

kindes of Churches, that is assembhes, called one, not, as the 

other, simplie and properlie one because they male meete alto- 



12 



AN ANSWER TO 



gether at once, but because theye meete in one profession and 
vnder one superior externall power. So, yf for advantage your 
false glosse were gyven you, your argument is a sophisme, a dido 
secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. There is in some sense but 
one kinde, therefore there is but one kinde in anie sense like this. 
There is in some sense but one onelie begotten sonne of God, 
therefore there is in noe sense anie other sonnes begotten of 
God. And that you male see the vanitie of it, I thus invert the 
place vpon you: If there male possiblie be manie kinde of 
Churches and one comprehendyng another, both called Churches 
trulie and true Churches, but in seuerall respectes called one, 
then the Apostle in saying there is one bodye doth not proue 
that there cannott be a provinceall Church comprehendyng 
manie particulers, but the former is true, therefore the latter./ 
The former is true nott oneHe in respect of the vniuersall Church 
comprehending all the particulers, and the nationall Church of 
the lewes conteyninge all the sinogogues, but of particuler 
Churches conteyning the Churches of. particuler famelies. The 
Church of Rome did comprehend the Churche that was in the 
house of Priscilla & Aquila, Rom. i6. 5. Nowe I aske, where is 
youre one Churche, that is one kinde of Church, become ?/ 



Your third reason followes: 
Robinson // a particuler Church he the bodye of Christe, as i. Cor. 12. 27, 
6° he the head, then a diocesan Church or ministration b' so the 
rest must needes he a monstrous interposition and intrusion be- 
twixt the head &° the bodye./ 

Answer I will not call you into questyon for the vnorderlie confoundyng 
of Church and ministration, as if they sounded one thing, but I 
answere that you plaie the sophister in this argument alsoe, 
disputinge ah accidente comuni tanquam a propria, takeyng that 
title to be onelye proper to a particuler congregation, which is 
comon thereto with the vniuersall, & so by a proportion with a 
nationall, so farre as it comprehendeth anie true partes or mem- 
bers of the vniuersall Church or is ioyned in the profession of 
the true fayth, as yf one should reason thus: Yf euerye particuler 
Christyan be the Temple of the holye Ghoste, then a particuler 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 1 3 

congregation is not soe, or yf everye private Christian be a mem- 
ber of Christe, then a particuler Church is not soe./ 
If you would argue to purpose, you should haue said : Yf a par- 
ticuler congregation be the onelie bodye of Christe, then a prov- 
inceall Church cannott be soe. But you sawe howe absurd it 
would be to saye that onelie a particuler congregation was the 
bodye of Christe, & therefore forbore that worde onelye, on 
which the argument should haue rested, & had not the iudgment 
to for beare the argument it self./ And to shewe you the wretch- 
ednes of your argument from this place, I would thus reason: Yf 
the Church of Corynth were the bodye of Christe, then your 
Church of Leyden is not, nor anie other particuler church out of 
Corynth, for to them onelye Paule there sayth, Yee are the 
bodye of Christe. You will answere that Paule doth not soe 
affirme it of the Corynthians, but that it maie be also affirmed 
of other Churches. Soe sale I. It is not so affirmed of a particuler 
congregation that it is the bodye of Christe, but that it maie agree 
to all particuler congregations gathered vnto Christe, whether in 
a diocesse or nation or in the world, that theye are the bodye of 
Christ, whether for the same respectes or other./ 
That which you insinuate of a monstrous intrusion, saying that 
yf a particuler congregacyon he the bodye of Christ and he the head 
of it, then anie dioceasan ministration is a monstrous interposition, 
&c., doth not onelie push at episcopall power, but at that of 
sinods equallye, and is a fantasticall toye contrarye to the 
Scripture. In the verye next verse, which sayeth, And God hath 
ordeyned some in the Church, as firste Apostles, &c., for were not 
the Apostles ouer the particuler Churches ? Had they not 
provinceall, nationall, yea, vniuersall power ouer the particuler 
churches ? And even then when Paule saith to the Corinthians, 
yee are the bodye of Christe, and that Christ was theire head ? 
But you forget that there maye be a necke to conveye from the 
head to the bodye, or that one man maie possiblie serue therein 
to sundrye bodyes, as the Apostles, evangelistes, and prophettes 
did./ 

Finallye, yf because the Church is the bodye of Christe, and he 
the head of it, there maie be for the externall regiment noe 
interposition betwixt her and her head, I will not aske what 



14 AN ANSWER TO 

Counselles shall doe, but I aske what are you to your congrega- 
tion ? You are not the bodye nor the head. Are you a monstrous 
interposition betwixt them both ? They that will presse simili- 
tudes and allegoryes to farre wringe sower conclusions out of 
sweet scriptures, as they that presse grapes to much gett sower 
iewce./ 

Your fourth argument followes thus:/ 
Robinson Christe speaketh immediatlye without diocesan or provinceall 
Churches to the 7 Churches of Asia, and standes in the middest 
of the 7 goulden candlestickes , Rev. i. 11. ij, &" hath promised 
his presence where two or j or more are gathered together in his 
name, Math. 18. 20, as the true Churche of Christe maie be, and 
ordinarilie is so gathered together in one to comunicate in the 
word, prayers, sacramentes, and censures of the Church, i. 
Cor. 5. 4. 5. &• II. 18. 20 b° 14. 2j./ 

*Answer Call you this disputyng. Christ spake not to the 7 Churches of 
Asia by anye diocesan Church. Ergo, a diocesan Church is a 
false Church. Is not this as good, Christe spake not to the 
Churches of Asia by a particuler Church, therefore a particular 
Church is a false Churche? Is not this good stuffe? Againe, 
Christ is in the middest of the 7 Churches of Asia, therefore a 
diocesan Church is noe true Church. Is not this as good, Christe 
is in the middest of all particuler Churches, therefore the Catho- 
like Church is noe true Church ?/ 

Agayne, where two or three are gathered in his name, Christ is 
in the middest of them. Ergo, a diocesan Church is a false 
Church ? Is not this argument as good ? Where twoe or three 
are gathered in the name of Christe, he is in the middest of them, 
therefore the Catholike Churche which never was, is, or shalbe 
gathered into one assemblie till the daie of ludgment, is till then 
a false Churche./ 

But you haue perhaps some better meaning then your words 
pretend, & verelye you had need, for never heard I anie man that 
had tasted logicke or learninge, reason soe as you doe, which I 
should not tell you so plainlie, but that I think your ouer weaning 
requires such plaines./ 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 1 5 

But to make your arguments as good as vpon this ground they 
can be, thus they rise : The 7 Churches of Asia were true Churches 
of Christe and all true particuler Churches haue Christe in the 
middest of them, therefore a provinceall Church is noe true 
Church of Christe. This followes not, and this is noe other argu- 
ment then your first, whose answere maie serue theretoe, namehe 
that it is a fallacye, yea a double fallacye, a non causa pro causa, 
et ah accidenti, as yf one should sale: The particuler cittyes of 
Holland, Freisland, Vtreck, &c., are ech of them true states by 
themselues, ergo, the vnited provinces together are not one true 
state, when as in seuerall respectes they are manye, & but one, 
and both true states./ 

Your mayne ground is shutt in a parenthesis wherein you saye, 
that the true Church of Christe maie be and ordynarilie is so gath- 
ered together in one to comunicate in the word, sacramentes, and 
censures of the Churche, &°c./, which is a false description of the 
truenes of a Church, for hereby you make this poynt of gatheryng 
into one assemblie the verye point of difference betwixt true and 
false Churches, which is a grosse absurditie. And withall you 
inferre, that those which doe nott or cannott ordinarylie meete, 
&c., are a false Church, which is false alsoe, for what yf persecu- 
tion should soe rage that the brethren neyther did nor could 
ordinariUe meete to the true worship of God, were they a false 
Churche? or should not their fellowship in profession & cove- 
nant once made, & theire comunion in the fayth, hould them still 
in some such societie as might iustlie yeild them the title of a 
true Church of God ?/ 

2. If this were essenciall to a true Church, then allso to euerye 
member of a true Church, soe far as it is a member, so that he 
were cutt of from the Church that were cutt of by violence from 
the ordinarye meetinges thereof./ 

3. Yea, yf this groundworke be good, then are the Churches no 
longer true Churches then while they are in assemblie together, 
for the word Church is noe more but assemblie, or congregation, 
as you knowe, & howe will you haue them true Churches, when 
they are nott att all Churches, by your rule./ 

4. Suppose this did agree as an inseperable quality e to every 
particuler true Church to meete ordynarilie to the worship of God, 



i6 



AN ANSWER TO 



yett it will not followe that a diocesan Church is nott at all a 
true Church, but onelie that it is not a particular Church, whose 
covenantes & dutye is to meete in one place ordinarilye./ This 
is the same sophisme sodden ouer againe (which mends it not) a 
dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter./ 

Robinson But it seemelh to he your iudgment aswell as myne that a par- 
ticider Church is the onelye true body pollitique &" ecclesiastically 
as appeareth in that you determine all profession &" practize of 
divine worship to such a bodye, whence I thus conclude./ 
Yf comunion maie he had onelie in the true Church, &' that a 
particuler Church be the onelie true Church, d* that noe man can 
haue comunion in St Andrewes Church but he must also haue 
comunion in a diocesan, provinceall, and nationall Church, 
which are noe true Churches, then comunion cannott lawfully e 
be had ivith St Andrewes Church, 6* so separation is iust &* 
necessary e./ 

Answer Because I said that, to speake properlie, euery particuler congre- 
gation is a Church, & the Church of England is nott one, but 
after a manner of speakyng, that is to saie, not properlie or 
simplie one, you take it I am of your iudgment, as yf one should 
denye him to be the sonne of God att all that is not soe properlie, 
or should affirme that he is noe true member of Christes bodie 
that is not properlie a member of his proper bodye./ 
Vnderstand, Sir, that thus I wrott to haue cutt you from those 
quarrelles which you might more iustlye pretend against the 
Church of England taken as one, and to haue made you more 
easilye see your sinne of forsakyng that particuler Churche against 
which you could nott pretend so much ; but I neuer was of your 
mynde in this pointe, and I trust neuer shall beleue but that 
all the Churches of a nation vnited in one fayth and proffession 
(which is the reall outward vnion of particuler members of Christ 
& his Church) meetyng sometymes in their officers or deputies, 
ranged vnder one superior externall power of discipline, maie be 
called convenientlie one Church, and that theire fayth and pro- 
fession beyng true, they are a true nationall Church. Wherefore, 
against your conclusion I oppose./ 
That yf comunion ought to be held with the true Churches of 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



17 



God to which we haue ioyned oure selues, and the Church of St 
Andrewe in Norwich be a true particuler Church (allthough a 
member or parcell of a nationall or diocesan Church), then 
comunion ought by you to haue beene held with it, and therefore 
your separation was neyther necessarye nor iust, but schismaticall 
and sinnefuU, of which I beseeche the God of mercye to gyue 
you true repentance in due tyme, and to make youre returne as 
famous as your falling of is notorious and scandalous./ 

Everye true Church of God is gathered out of the world and sepa- Robinson 
rated and sanctified actuallye from the same in religious comunion - • Argximeat 
accordyng to the dispensation of the tymes, whether before the 
Lawe or vnder the Lawe or since Christe came in the flesh. Gen. 
3. 15. b' 4. 16. b' 6. 2.?^ g. 26. 27. 6* 12. I. 2. J. Levit. 20. 7. 
2. 4. Ezra. 10. II. Nehemiah. g. 2. loh. 15. ig. Act. 2. 40. &* 
ig. g. Rom i. 7. / Cor. i. 2. g. Phil. i. 6. 7. But St. Andrewes 
is not so gathered out of the world, nor separated and sanctefled 
from the world according to the dispensation of the Go spell, but 
was at the first gathered for the most parte, and so still consisteth 
verye much of the men of the world, as is most apparent, as by 
other enormityes, so in particuler by the persecutions raised even 
amongst them selues against such as prof esse the feare of God in 
anye sinceritye, besides that it standes vnseparated from 6* in 
spirituall comunion one bodye ecclesiasticall visiblye or exter- 
nallye with all that parte of the world within the kinges domin- 
ions./ 

Your first proposition is not cleare enough, for yf by separation Answer 
from the world and actuall sanctification you meane that the 
Churches of God are so separated in the profession they vnder- 
take & ought to be practized, then it is true, but yf you meane 
(as it seemes you doe) that all true particuler Churches and mem- 
bers therof are reallye sanctefyed and separated by the spirit of 
sanctification from the wicked, or elles cease to be the Churches 
of God, your proposition is Anabaptisticall & false, and so dis- 
proued by the holy scriptures, as I wonder anye man can vtter 
it that reades them./ 

The places you alledge for proofe of this fansie are divers, none 
proveyng, most disproveyng the same, For Gen. i . 1 5 is properlie 



1 8 AN ANSWER TO 

to be vnderstood of Christ, analogicallye of the true Children 
of God which are at enmitye with the world, even though theye be 
ioyned externallye in one spirituall comunion, as were Ismael & 
**Gal. 4. 29. Isaak, lacob & Esaw, & some of the Galatians (as it seemeth). 
Gen. 14. 16. Your second place maie importe noe more but that Cayne, de- 
parting from God's presence which then had talked with him, 
went to the land of Nod, &c., as a man ashamed of his facte. 
But was Cayne euer actually sanctifyed, or was he not, of the 
Church before ? or were the rest noe true Church till he was 
separated ? or did they cast him oute ?/ 

Your third Gen. 6. 2 shewes, indeed, that there were some that 
professed God's seruice, when others became prophane, but had 
these sonnes of God beene all actuallye sanctefied they would 
haue forborne the daughters of men, and when they did mixe 
with them, were they not still for a tyme the visible Church of 
God ? or was there none ? 

Gen. 9. 26. 27 prophesies that- God's covenant should be espe- 
cyally stablished with Shem's posteritye which were the lewes. 
And were all the lewes (saue in profession and dutye) actuallye 
separated from the world & actually sanctified ? Will Mr 
Robynson affyrme that, agaynste all God's complayntes of them 
by the prophets ? 

Gen. 12. I. Abraham is separated from his idolatrous kindred, 
even locallye, what then ? Will you inferre a locall separation 
alsoe from the world ? Againe was not this in respect of externall 
worship of the true God ? Was Abraham alone a Churche ? 
Or were all his familie internally saintes ? even Ismaell also ? 
or were they not all one church with him ? Levit. 20. 7, Sanctefie 
your selues &c., proues that the people which prof esse God's 
name, ought to be sanctefied, but doth not proue that theye are 
soe, or elles are nott (as touching externall covenant and ap- 
pearance) God's people. Vers. 2, of not sacrificeing theire sormes 
to Molech and punishing with death such as did it, touched a 
mayne pointe of worship wherein yett yf some fayled (as they 
after did), the rest sufferyng them, yett ceased not the lewes to 
be the people of God. From fay ling in a dutye to a falling from 
covenant houldes neyther in a Church nor in a Christyan./ 
Ezra 10. II requires separation from grosse idolaters and strange 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 1 9 

women, but doth not proue that theye were all personallye and 
inwardlye saintes, when this was done, nor that they were not 
the true people of God before this separation, yea therein is 
against you./ 

Nehem. 9. 2 shewes a parti culer separation from aliens which 
perhaps would not ioyne with them in God's worship, but proues 
not all Israeli to haue beene internally sanctified, or not to haue 
beene externallye God's people before this separation, but 
contrary lye/. 

loh. 15. 19. The world that hated the disciples were the lewes, 
which at that tyme were the visible Church of God, though not 
true members in the sighte of God. The world is sometimes in 
the Church and even there hates those that are in it & of it./ 
Acts 2. 40 is an exhortation indeed to separation in pointe of 
fayth from those that resist the Messiah, not from all comunion 
with them in everye pointe of God's worship, wherein the Apos- 
tles obserued them for a tyme, nor doth this place proue that 
particuler Churches in all the members therein are actuallye 
sanctified, seing a man might, and manie did, abandon the 
Jewish infidelitie that were never sanctified in theire hartes, as 
Ananias, & Saphira, & Simon Magus./ 

Paule separated from blasphemers & withdrewe the disciples to Acts 19. 9. 
another place. What then ? Therefore it is fitt to withdrawe 
doctrine from dispisers, & the brethren from such companie. 
This will follow well, but therefore all the members of a true 
visible Church are actuallye sanctified will not followe, noe nor 
that they are actuallye separated, for I demaund, Were the 
brethren whome Paule at lengthe separated a Church of God 
before that separation or noe ? The most that can be inferred 
hence is, that there ought to be a separation from obstinate re- 
fusers, but proues not that yf this be not done, God's people 
loose theire beyng./ 

Called to be saynts in Rom. i. 7 is as much as saintes by calling, 
I. Cor. 1.2, which shewes what is the profession and dutye of 
euerye member of the Churches, not what is their capacytie./ 
And yf you did not loose your eyes by stryveyng, you might see 
that even amongst them whome the Apostle calleth sayntes by 
calling, there were manie corupt, & vnsanctefied persons, car- 



20 AN ANSWER TO 

*» I. Cor. 3. 1. 4. nallye * contentious one with another, wantons & vncleane per- 

J' ^" _ • •'■^- sons,'' prophaners of the lordes sacramentes,<= doubters of the 

*o J Cor. II. 30 . 

*<i I Cor !<; 12 resurrection, <> &c., and it seemes that in the Church of Galatia" 

*« Gal. 4. 29./ there were that persequuted theire godlye brethren as you saie 
there be in St Andrewes, which yett are counted one bodye or 
comunion with the true saintes among them, because of this 
externall profifession wherin they ioyned with them./ 
As for Phil. i. 6 it is no better, for the Apostle speakes of that 
Church accordyng to the good parte of it, & respectiuelye to the 
true lyving members therof which were sanctefied, not denying 
but there were amongst them even of their teachers bellye gods 

*^ Phil. 3. 18. and worldlynges, of whome he giveth them warning with teares.* 
So then I invert, Yf the lewes were the true people of God and 
to be ioyned with in God's worship notwithstandyng their 
mixture of cleane and vncleane and the shamefull fiUthines of 
maimers which were in some of them, so long as they yett re- 
teyned the fundamental! partes of God's externall worship;/ if 
the churches of Galatia, Corinthe, Asia were true Churches, 
when they had some amongst them vniust, vnholye, loving the 
wages of vnrighteousnes, teaching alsoe some false doctrine, 
then it followes that everye true Church of God is not (in all the 
members therof) separated from the world and actuallye sancte- 
fied, but in onely such of the members as are the seed of God 
accordyng to the election of grace, whose right is not lost by other 
men's lewdnes, & that such churches are not to be forsaken./ 
No we to your minor touching St Andrewes parish./ 
I further answere that as touching profession of fayth & sanctetye 
accordyng to the word there taught and professed and sacra- 
mentes administred, it was gathered and actuallye separated from 
the world & sanctified, which is as much as is needfull to the con- 
stitution of a particuler visible Church. If some be loose and hate- 
full against others that are better reformed, it is noe other then in 
other Churches, that is to saie, a fault of men's persons./ Touch- 
ing the first gathering thereof it perteynes rather to your third 
argimient & there shall receyve further answere./ 
The comunion it professedlie houldes with all his Maiestie's 
dominions is cheifelye in the fayth of Christ and true worship 
of God./ 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



21 



The summe of my answere is this, that your maior is false, vnder- 
stood as you doe of reall separation from the wicked and actuall 
sanctefication./ 

And yf you vnderstand it of the profession of sanctefication 
whereto a church of Christe is called, then is your minor false 
touching St Andrewes parishe, wherein yf there be manye, 
might [?] they swarue from that to which they are called, as 
Israeli did to whome it was said : Be yee holy, for I the Lorde 
your God am holye./ 

I come to your third argument with this onelye item, that your 
second and third (as your first) doe aswell condemne eyther all 
or most of the reformed Churches, as namelye those of Scotland, 
and this of the lowe countries, as the Churches of England, for 
in them is mixture, and they were by authoritie compelled to de- 
sist from superstition, and resume the true worship of God, yf 
they would haue favoure of the magistrate./ 

Everye true Church of God is ioyned with him in holye covenant 
by voluntarye profession to haue him the God therof &" to be his 
people. Gen. ly. i. 2; Deut. 2g. 10. 11. 12 ^c; Nehem. 10. 
I. 2g; Acts 2. 41; i. loh. i. j; 2. Cor. 6. 16. &° g. 13./ 

Your first proposition, vnderstood as you vnderstand it generallye 
of all Churches and of such a voluntarye profession as excludes 
the compulsion of any externall power, is false, but for the better 
discerning of the error thereof, it behoueth to premise some ad- 
monitions, & first to distinguish the first erecting or foundyng of 
a Church (where none was) as it were vpon a newe foundation 
from the reedyfying or repayring of a church vpon the founda- 
tion formerly layed./ 

For even as in the case of the maried where cause of separation 
hath beene gyven, it is not needfull to solemnize a newe mariage 
or begin the contract againe but onelie to recognize the bond 
allreadye entred, so it is in the case of Churches which haue 
fallen in greate measure from their covenant, that there needs 
not as at the first a newe collection or calling out to make a cove- 
nant, but a recognition of the covenant once made in takeyng vp 
the profession and practize thereof./ 
And in this case of recognition or reduction that is lawfull & 



Robinson 
3. Argument 



Answer 
[This distinction 
of planting and 
repayring 
Churches your 
owne Mr Clifton 
is forced to Iboke 
vp against Mr 
Smith for the 
baptizing of the 
children of 
apostate Churches: 
who thinkes the 
word repayring 
fitter then yours 
of constituting 
Churches. Page 
201 & before page 
187.] 



22 



AN ANSWER TO 



[f Which was as 
your owne Mr 
Clifton shewes 
before the 
apostacie of 
Antichrist. Plea 
of Infants, page 
200 & 204, yet 
were these dio- 
caesan Churches.] 
[a 2 Chron. 15. 13. 
•* 2 Chron. 30. 5. 
12. 

" 2 Chron. 34. 32. 
*! Ezra 7. 26.] 



[The substance 
of a thing is that 
which giues the 
first essence 
thereto. The 
solemnity is a 
manner or qual- 
lity accidentall or 
happening to the 
thing, whereby 
the act is made 
solemne, saith 
Alciati: Lib. 5. 
Paradoxorum, 2 
dox., cap. 15.] 



fitte which at the first entrye of covenant had beene iniurious 
[?], even as when a man hath taken vp his freedome, he is lyable 
to taxes and dutyes which before could not be imposed ; or as a 
seruant haueying once entred condicions of service, maie after 
iustlye be compelled to keepe those condicyons which he could 
not at the first be compelled to enter into, soe it is for those that 
for themselues & for theire seed haue once voluntarilye embraced 
covenant with God, that yf they or theires after fall from it, they 
maye be by censures of the Church, or cyvill power compelled 
to resume theire covenant, of which we see examples in the 
scriptures./ 

No we, accordyng to this true ground, you ought to haue con- 
sidered (which you forgett) that the reformations made in Queene 
Elizabethes or King Edwardes daies, were not the first plantyng 
of the Englishe Churches (which were then planted when by the 
preaching of the Gospell theye were converted to the Christian 
fayth & gaue them selues thereto voluntary lye),t but were onely 
such a reducyng of them to the true worship of God (with whome 
they still professed to hould covenant) as the scriptures doe hon- 
orabhe commend to haue beene vrged by Asa,'" Hezekiah,*" 
Iosiah,'= and some other kinges.^i/ 

Soe vnthankfullye doe you blame the worthye endevoures of our 
princes cut out after the paterne of the famous kinges of luda, 
and so vnskillfullye doe you confound the callyng, & recalling, 
building, and repayring of the Churches, makeyng that essentiall 
in the one case that is soe onelye in the other./ 
There is yett one thing more to be admonished, namely that you 
doe confound an extemall solemnitie or forme of profession with 
the essentiall outward forme of a Church, and make that to be of 
the essence which is but of the ornament, as were those sollemne 
professions of repentance or renewing covenant alledged by you, 
which did not make the people of God then to be (as doth the 
essentiall forme), but did as a solemnitie declare the same to be 
his people professedlye./ 

These things beyng premised, no we lett vs examine your argu- 
ment in all the proofes of it, and see howe vnsuflScyent they are 
to your purpose. Gen. 17. i. 2 proues not that everye member 
of a visible Church doth voluntarilye take vpon him the covenant, 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



23 



but that such members as will approue themselues to God must 
bee perfect, that is vpright./ 

Secondlye, this was at the first institution of the covenant before 
circumcision, vnto which though Abraham as the first taker vp 
of this tenure must needs enter voluntariHe, yett was it imposed 
on others without their consent, which the text it self cleares, 
verse 9. 10. 11. 12, where the badge of covenant is imposed vpon 
the child of 8 daies ould who was not led to take it vpon him (as 
Abraham) by voluntary profession but rather compelled./ 
Thirdlye, your instance is not of a Church, but of a person, be- 
twixt which there is great odds, for a visible Church standyng in 
covenant maye consiste of elect and reprobate, but noe person 
houldeth covenant with God in private, but the elect of God 
onelye./ 

Lastlye, Abraham was separated vnto God before this solemmtie,t 
and therefore it is ill appHed to the first act of gathering or sepa- 
ratynge vnto God by covenant./ 

Your second place out of Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. 13 is onlie of a 
solemne renewing '^ of covenant, which did not make them nowe 
to become the people of God by gathering them into a covenant, 
but serued to stirre vp conscience of the covenant made with 
them before, like as the Judges of Sparta renewed ther oathes 
once a month, which solemnitie did not then make them newe 
Judges but put them in minde of their ould dutyes./ For it is 
confessed, vers, i, that before this covenant God had made a 
covenant f with them in Horeb (which was not of God's parte 
revoked) as before with Abraham & his seed, Gen. 17./ 
Moreouer, this place proues not that all did it voluntarily, but 
that they ought rather, as beyng drawne to that end before the 
Lord's presence./ 

It was made not onelye with the present assemblie, vers. 14. 15, 
but aswell with the absent, whose voluntarye consent no man 
could knowe, but Moses knewe it was their dutyes to haue con- 
sented and bindes them to it./ 

Fynallye, here you put an externall solemnitye practized by such 
as were before this tyme God's people, for the verye essencyall 
forme which makes the people of God to be that they are./ 
Your third place out of Nehem. 10. i is as impertinent, for it is 



[Us- 18.I 



[* Renewing not 
entrie into coue- 
nant as your 
owne Mr Clifton 
against Smith 
sayth often, as 
page 21 & 29, 
though page 196 
he crosse himselfe ] 
[Deut. 29. i.j 

[fWhence your Mr 
Clifton proues 
that infants 
may be baptized 
without their 
owne stipulation 
or contract with 
the Lord.] 

[2ly.] 



[sly-] 



24 



AN ANSWER TO 



^2ly. 



*3h- 



[Neh. 9. 38. 



[b By this dis- 
tinction your Mr 
Clifton defendes 
himselfe against 
Smith the Ana- 
baptist obiecting 
that place, 187.] 

**3- 



I5 place] 



onelye of an outward solemnitye, vsed in testimonye of theire 
repentance at a solemne fast; and you take an example as a 
necessarye rule, an ornament for a mere necessitie./ 
This is not of a people gathered by this acte of voluntarye pro- 
fession, for they were before this the people of God & in covenant, 
but was only a godlye publication of their purpose to cleaue to 
God./ 

The sealers here are not all but the cheife for the rest whose 
voluntarye consent they could not knowe, which example might 
rather haue showed you the lawfullnes of our princes' reforma- 
tion, when by Acte of Parhament they repealed superstitions and 
published God's worship, wherein (inclusiuelye) one might sale 
all the land consented voluntarilye, at least as well as all Israeli 
vnto this acte of the princes, Levites, and preistes, Nehem. 9. 38./ 
Your fourth place of Acts 2. 41, of baptizing those that gladley 
receyued the word vpon the first plantyng of the Christian 
Churches, is vnfittlye alledged in a case not of plantyng, but of 
repairyng; not of baptizyng, but of reforming the baptized/ 
Presse this place and it will driue you to the Annabaptistes, for 
whye doe you baptize infantes or anye saue such as gladlie 
recejoie the word ? vnles there be a difference to bee made be- 
twixt those that are to enter, and those that in themselues or 
their forefathers were entred before, as indeed there is./ ^ 
By this place you male as well proue with the Annabaptistes that 
none are members of the visible Churches but those that are 
truelie sanctefied, for such were these, yet you require but a 
voluntarye profession of covenant, which hipocrites male make./ 
I. John. I. 3 is farre of from the marke, for this onelie showes 
that by the doctrine of the Gospell preached, men are called into 
the fellowship of God & his sayntes, but proues not that the 
posteritie of those which haue beene called by doctrine into that 
fellowship maie not be compelled to desist from superstitions, 
and from practizing anie other then God's worship where toe 
theye stand bound by auncyent covenant./ 
If this place will proue that none be of the visible Church but 
such as by illumination of the word vnite themselues to the 
saintes, it will also proue that none vnite themselues to the 
Churches but those that are alsoe vnited to the Father and the 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



25 



[^ This distinction 
of internall and 
externall, &c., is 
your Mr Clifton 
glad to take vpp 
against the 
Anbaptistes. 
Page 196.] 



Sonne, that is the seyntes, as Mr Smyth & the Annabaptistes 
hould./ So there shall not be anye hipocrite in the Churches./ 
2 Cor. 6. 16 proues well that God's people ought not to haue com- [6 place] 
munion with idols, idolaters, or vncleanes, but rather separate 
from them, which will well warrant the magistrates to thrust 
God's people out of such companye yf they be not diligent enough 
to goe of themselues./ 

The voluntarye separacion to be vrged from hence is not to **2. 
make a man externallye a member of the visible Church (which 
maie be, whether his profession be voluntarye or noe),'' but to 
make him intemallie one of God's, which is another point which 
magistrates cannott reache toe./ 

It is one thing to be one of God's people at large, as all the pro- 
fessed members of his Church are, another to be one of his in 
specyall, as are onlye his elect. There is a lewe which is not a 
lewe, an Israelite not an Israelite, a Christian not a Christian, 
and as theyr condicyons are diuers, so are the essencyall formes ^' 
of their constitution, a point which you seeme to forgett while 
you require the same condicions of euery externall member of 
the Church, which must be had in everye sincere member./ 
Finallye, out of this place yssues an exhortacyon that everye **4. 
member of the Church should purge himself from all filthines, 
2. Cor. 7. I, but yf he doe not, it foUowes not that he is noe visible 
member, or the congregation (wherein he is) noe true Church of 
God. And therefore yf you will folio we this place home to the 
marke in your sense, you must tume Annabaptist, as others haue 
done vpon the same ground./ 

2. Cor. 9. 13. The voluntarye submission of the Church of Cor- [7 place] 
inth to the Gospell at their first calling proues not that therefore 
in the recalling of a wandring Church all the members must 
voluntarilye submitt theretoe or elles there is noe true Church. 
However they ought and must (yf they wilbe true members of 
the Church) willinglye submitt themselues./ 

You are farre wide yf you thinke that whatsoeuer the Apostles **2. 
speake in praise of the Churches was true in all the members 
therof, for even amongst those Corinthians (as appeares) were [2. Cor. 12. 21.] 
manie such, as the Apostle feared he should finde such as he 
would not, and such as he should bewayle, which had not repented 



26 AN ANSWER TO 

of their vncleanes, fornication, and wan tonnes committed. 
Thinke you these also had submitted to the word saue in pro- 
fession ?/ 

Now to your minor I answere, first, that you deale not sincerelye 
in chaunging the state of your question for advantage, for the 
question beynge of St Andre wes as it no we stands, you runne 
backe to that congregation as it stood fiftye years agoe, as yf 
because then manie did suddenlye & ignorantlye embrace the 
truthe, for respect of the lawes, therefore now also this congrega- 
tion (wherin perhaps be not two of those lefte) doth not volun- 
tarelye receyue the covenant of God. Mr Robinson, is this 
answered with a good conscyence, is this sinceritye ? 
Touching that congregacion as it was then, how proue you it did 
not embrace the covenant voluntarilye ? forsooth because by 
compulsion ? what compulsion ? was there anye other com- 
pulsion then the commaund of the lawes to desist from idolatrie 
& to worship God accordyng to his word ? And could not this 
compulsion of lawe stand with voluntarye submission, as well as 
Israeli willinglye embraced what Asa and his princes, Hezekiah 
and his princes decreed and enacted, 2. Cron. 15. 15 & 30. 12?/ 
Verelye, the ioye of most places in England at that change, 
rather showed that former restreynt & feare had kepte them to 
superstition, then that they were vn willing to leaue it of./ 
You mistake yf you thinke they were all taken vppon the acte of 
authoritye to be members of the Churches, but partlye vpon 
their first covenant & then vpon their submission to the lawe 
and reall profession, which whether it were voluntarye or noe, 
could not be iudged, nor can you tell./ 

Wheras you sale it was accordyng to the perambulation of the 
parish, I answere you that though a man was taken as belonging 
to the congregation of such a parish, yett this alone made no 
man a member or comunicant, but his auntient birthright and 
his willingnes to comunicate./ 

Whereas you sale, that they still were for the most parte noteore- 
ous, ignorant, and prophane persons, you speake at randome, 
but where you sale it hath ever since the first mouldyng and yet 
doth consiste for a greate part of such as with whome the Lord 
neuer entred covenant (yf you speake of the external covenant 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



27 



it is fals of all, for they all haue the covenant of God as all Israeli 
had, Rom, 9. 4;yf of secret or internall covenant it is imperti- 
nent, yett herein, besides that you are very presumptuous in that 
censure and forgett what apparent faultes male be in the true 
sayntes,/ you do crosse your self in confessing a greate part of 
that congregation to be such as with whome God is in covenant, 
whoe yet externallye haue noe other covenant with God then all 
the rest prof esse to hould, and withall you insinuate a grosse 
error, namelye that the socyetye of those which are vnsanctefied 
doth disanull the covenant of God with such as are sanctefied, 
as yf forsooth theise were not a people gathered vnto God in 
specyall covenant because there be among them such as are nott 
indeed in covenant with God but in showe onelye or exter- 
nallye)/. 

Here also you fall agayne into your ould pitt while you confound 
the consideration of externall members with the condicion of 
internall or sincere by which rule you maie condemne all the 
Churches that ever were, yf anye hipocrites be among them, 
seyng God neuer entered into inward covenant with hipocrites./ 
Wherefore, when as you conclude that St Andrewes hath neyther 
the matter of a Church, which is sayntes by calling, nor true 
foraie, which is covenant with the Lord, and therefore can be 
noe true Churche,/ you haue onelye taught your toungue to 
slander a famous Church of Christe which hath manie reall 
sayntes in it, and none but doe professe sanctetye & houldeth 
that same covenant with God professedlye which Christ hath 
sealed with his blood, beleiving and professing that fayth which 
you dare not as yett gainsaye./ 

I haue allreadye shewed the ground of this error that you doe 
falselye define the essencyall forme of a visible Church as you 
did before the matter of the visible Churches./ 
I therefore invert this argument vpon you thus: St Andrewes 
hath the matter of a true Churche, which is men called to be 
seyntes, & the true forme, which is the profession of covenant 
with God by lesus Christe accordyng to the Gospell. Therefore 
it is a true visible Church from which noe man can separate 
without sinne. Looke you therefore to your reckoning, for it is 
fearfull./ 



[Yet saith your 
Mr Clifton, page 
22: We count 
these that are 
hypocrites & doe 
outwardly profess 
the faith to be of 
the couenant, 
and, page 80, 
holy in regard 
of the couenant.] 



28 



AN ANSWER TO 



[4 Argument] The fourth argument followes./ 

Robinson No comunion male he had in a devised worship or liiurgye, &"€./ 

Answer You make your propositions verye loose & ambiguous, which 
must be want of iudgment or of conscyence./ For worship and 
liturgie or seruice in vse of speech signifies sometyme the es- 
sencyall actes of God's worship or thinges wherein we doe es- 
teeme God to be worshipped, in which sense all devised worship 
is sinnefull; sometyme by worship is meant the outward fashion, 
or carriage of such dutyes as belong to the worship of God, in 
which thinges the devise of men is not simphe excluded but 
lymitted./ 

Nowe, yf your proposition be vnderstood of worship properlye 
so called, it is true, but then youre minor is false of the Churches 
of England./ If it be vnderstood, as you seeme to vnderstand 
it, of anie externall forme or order of disposeinge the actions 
perteyninge to God's worship, it is a fantasticall opinion, con- 
trarye to the iudgment of all the Churches of God & their practize 
in all ages and to the scriptures./ 

But come wee to the proofes, by which you would proue the 
Churches of England to be constituted in a false worship of 
God./ 



28. 



IJEster 9. 27 
I. Chron. 24. 3. 
with 25. 6. et 2 
Chron. 23. 18, 
the end of it.l 



Robinson First (you saye) much of the matter of the service booke is erroneous./ 

Answer Perhaps you meane some translations or some apocriphall 
chapters which yett noe more concludes a false worship of God, 
then when a man missealledges a text or mistakes the sense. All 
the booke is not properlie worship, and therefore there male be 
errors in the booke, which are not errors in God's worship./ 
Besides that everye error in worship makes not a false worship 
seeyng there is noe sinne, but it is some error./ 
That all the booke is not properlye dyvine worship you confesse 
in charging it to conteyne some thinges in their nature cyvill, as 
burialles and manages, which yett maie (in that vse the Church 
principallye intends which is reuerentlye to blesse mariage, & to 
make some vse vnto the lyving of the buryall of the dead) haue 
some thing anexed to them that is devine. Eatyng our meate 
is a cyvill action, but gyveing of thankes is a sacred./ 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



29 



Mr Robinson 

**2. 

Answer 



The churching of women, or thankesgyuing as it is vsed with vs, 
cannott be called Jewish, nor is (otherwise then in the vse of 
prayers) esteemed anye worship of God./ 

Biddyng of holy dayes is noe parte of dyvine service, noe more then 
the publishing the banes of mariage, nor is the keeping of them 
popish that is to the honor of the seintes, but of God onelie, nor 
doth oure Church esteeme the obseruation of such dayes anye 
parte of God's worship, but a thinge indifferent. This rabble of im- 
pertinent thinges in which your conscyence knowes the Churches 
place noe worhip serue but for faceyng, wherein yf the Churches 
be encombred withe some vnnecessarye fashions, it is a defecte 
in her order, but yett it is nott in the proper partes of God's 
worship./ 

To proue a devised worship you saie God hath commanded noe 
hooke hut the ould and newe Testament to be vsed in his Church, 
what then ? Therefore, his worship male not be placed in the 
vses of anye other booke, as it is an other booke followes well, 
but therefore noe booke elles male be vsed in the tyme of wor- 
shipping God will nott followe, noe more then to saie God hath 
commanded nothing but water for baptisme, bread and wine for 
the Lord's supper, therefore to command that the water be in a 
bason or font brought into the Church, the bread on a plate, the 
wine in a siluer, glassen, or earthen cuppe is a will worship, as 
indeed it were, yf anye man placed the worship of God therin. 
Mr Smyth by the same ground hath cast out all translated 
scriptures from beyng vsed in the tyme of God's worship, you 
shall doe well to goe to him or quite his grounds, vnles you can 
proue that God commaunded a translacyon to be vsed in his 
Churche more then a forme of prayer./ 

God was and maie be purelie worshipped without a prescript Mr Robinson 
forme, ergo, this is a devised worship./ 3- 

Good, yf we beleeued that in this verye forme consistes the wor- Answer 
ship of God, elles ridiculous; for eyther maie be where neyther 
is necessarye./ God was and maie be trulye worshipped without 
anye particuler place sett aparte theretoe. Therefore to appoint 
a place for it is to devise a worship. Indeed, to thinke the wor- 
ship bettered by the place it self were to devise a worship./ 



30 



AN ANSWER TO 



And howe easilye is this to be inverted ? The holye prophettes 
and Churches of God haue purelye worshipped God vsyng pre- 
script formes of prayers, as doe all reformed Churches (I count 
not you that are in mutenye against all reformed Churches) of 
Christendome at this daye. Therefore, a prescript forme of 
prayer is not a devised or will worship eo nomine because it is 
prescribed./ 

Mr Robinson The service booke quencheth the spirrit of prayer. Ergo, it is a 

*4- devised worship./ ' 

Answer Indeed, yf it doe, it is a cause, but not soe yf it doe it as an oc- 
casion onelye, by reason of oure preiudice or negligence. 

Mr Robinson But why doth it quench the spiritt of prayer, which God gyves to 
the officers of his Church ? because (forsooth it taketh vp the place 
and worke of the spiritt, whose office is to teach vs what to praye ac - 
cordyng to oure present necessities. Rom. 8. 26. i. Cor. 12. 7./ 
Answer Howe takes it vp the place and worke of the spirit ? what by 
ministring vnto vs without studye the matter of oure requestes 
or the manner of vtteryng them," that oure affections might be 
the more at large and intentiue ?/ Howe did God teach the 
lewes, howe did our Lord teache his disciples to praye ? Did 
God's spiritt teach meanes of crosseyng or of serving it self./ 
To saye Christ taught not his disciples a sett forme of prayer 
which they were (though not alone or allwayes) to vse, is one of 
the most fantasticall conceytes that ever came in anye man's 
*Luke II. 2. brayne, considering how clearlye the Evangelist notes the occa- 
sion gyven & the answere thus, saye Oure Father, not thus, sale to 
your heauenlye Father, or praye to him that his name maye be 
hallowed, &c., but puttyng the forme of peticion into their 
mouth he bids them speake thus vnto God, Our Father which 
arte in heauen, &c./ 

Tell me not that there is noe comparison betwixt Christes prayer 
& ours, least I tell you no more is there betwixt his & yours con- 
ceyued. The question is not of the excellencye of the prayers but 
of their prescription or stintednes./ 

Moreover, yf the worke of the Spiritt be hindred by a prescript 
forme of words, then by all the publike prayers of the pastors 
is the spiritt of prayer hindred in the people, while to them is the 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 3 1 

forme of prayer prescribed in as much as the ministers' wordes 
limittes their spiritt in prayer./ 

Answere me nott that this is God's ordinance, for yf you doe, 
you then confes that God hath ordeyned his people a stinted 
forme of prayer, while they all are to attend what one speaketh 
and are prescribed what to praye for & in what words not by 
the spiritt in them, but by the mouth of their minister./ 
Yf you were not contentious, you might see that all publike 
prayer is limitted and stinted to all the congregacyon, saue onlie 
to him that conceyueth it, wherin yf the Church of God maye 
by the Spiritt of God make her prayers, then is not the worke of 
the Spiritt hindred by the prescription or limitacyon of a sett 
forme./ 

Doth not Mr. Robinson yett knowe that the act of prayer, as it 
is a spirituall worship, lyes not in the forme of words, whether 
vttered out of present conceyt or written out of former conceyte, 
but in the intencyon of the hearte sanctefied by fayth presenting 
the requestes vnto God with feeling, which intention of the spiritt 
takes neyther help or hurte by the difference of a present or 
former conception of words ceteris paribus./ And verely as it 
were a superstition to place the verye acte of devine worship 
(properlye taken) in such or such a forme of wordes written, so 
is it a like supersticyon to hould that God cannott be worshipped 
in anye forme of words conformable to the scriptures./ For 
eyther of these doth alike place the worship of God wherein he 
hath not placed it. So you teach a devised worship of God in 
prayers, & not the Church of England, while you teach that God 
cannott as truelye be worshipped in a forme of prayer penned 
as in a forme of prayer immediatly conceyued, whereas the 
Churches of England houldes them indifferent, prescribyng some 
prayers and leaving others to the minister's abilitie, discrecyon, 
& present occasions according (therin) to the scriptures, which 
giues vs examples of both kindes vsed of God's people, and al- 
lowed of God himself./ 

You speake comonlie of the spiritt in prayer, as yf the worke of 
the spiritt therein were some extraordinarye inspiracyon or rav- 
ishment like those of the prophettes & not an habituall grace 
sanctefying our intencyon, memoryes, iudgment and affections. 



32 



AN ANSWER TO 



» Numb. 6. 23, 

&c. Ps. 92. Ps. 

102. 

'' Luke II. 2. 



*Mr Robinson. 
5. Argument 

*Answer 



which yf it be your meaning to doe, you shall doe well to foresee 
the spiritt of Annabaptistrye to be entring vpon you, but yf you 
meane by the spiritt no other then that grace which sanctefyeth 
and directeth our naturall powers in that worke, then doe not 
thinke the spiritt to be eyther impeached, disparaged, or hindred 
by anye suche externall meanes as help our invencyon or mem- 
oryes. Howe euer noe such outward helps can sufficientlye 
teach our heartes to praie, for that onelye doth the spiritt of 
God./ 

You ad that prayer must he accordyng to the present necessityes, & 
I tell you that the comon prayers of the Churche of England are 
for such thinges as we ought to thinke necessarye to be craued 
for our selues or some other of our brethren at all tymes./ 
And as for extraordinarye occasions the minister is left at Ubertye 
to meet with them./ 

Lett me, therefore, conclude that seyng God himself ordeyned 
some sett formes of prayer to be vsed,^ & Christ "^ taught his 
disciples a sett forme of prayer, and all publike prayers are to the 
people sett formes of prayers, sett formes, therefore, hinder not 
but rather serue the grace of God's spirit in their heartes. Fy- 
nallye, seeing all Churches of God vsed sett forme of prayers, it 
is a strange fantasticall pride in you to condemne all the Churches 
of God of false worship, and a false worship among your selues 
to place the worship of God in one onelye kinde & manner of 
prayers which God himself hath left indifferent to that waye or to 
another, provided allwayes that the externall manner be ani- 
mated & quickned by his spiritt in oure heartes, without which 
all kinde of prayer conceyued or written are to vs dead & vayne, 
to God vnpleasant & vnsauorye./ 

It is not lawfull to comunicate in anye other ministerye then 
Christ hath left in his Church which I thus manifest. 

Your maior is ambiguous, true in some sense, false in some other, 
for yf by other ministerye you meane essencyallye & intencyon- 
allye an other ministerye then Christ hath left in his Churche, 
it is true; but yf you meane (as it seemes you doe) by another 
ministerye, a ministerye of anye other fashion in the manner of 
calling, title, imployment, or mayntenance, then is it false, your 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



33 



proofes eyther needles or forceles, — needles, yf you would proue 
that which noe man denyes, forceles yf you would proue that a 
man maie not comunicate with anye other ministerye then such 
as is in all pointes prescribed by Christe./ But lett vs see your 
proofes whose want of weight you supplye with number./ First 
you saye: 

The ministerye of the newe Testament is a parte of Christes *Mr Robinson 
Testament which he hath sealled with his blood, and therefore 
nothing maie be added to it or taken from it. Gall. j. 7; Heb. 

g. 17.1 

Your places out of Gal. 3. 15 (for you misnumbred the verse) & *Answer 
Heb. 9. 17 proue that God's covenant is not to be disanulled, but 
you should haue proved that every ministerye or kinde of seruice 
in the Church with all the circumstances thereof are prescribed 
in Christes Testament, wherto you bring nothing but a bare 
assertion; yett yf you had proued so much, you had not proued 
what you vndertooke, namelye, that it is not lawfull to comuni- 
cate (suppose not in lawfull thinges) with a ministerye which is 
in anye pointe sinnefullye vnder taken. Howe euer the sinne is 
nott to be allowed./ 
Your second proofe is this : 



*Mr Robinson 



It is a parte of Christes kinglye office to appoint the officers and 
ministers of his kingdome./ 

What then ? Therefore, noe kinde of officers maye be appointed *Answer 
in the Church but by Christ in his owne person. Will that 
followe ? Or by Christes imediate revellation. Will that followe? 
Verylye not soe, but that, therefore, noe office maie be sett vppe 
contraryant to those that he hath established & rules which he 
hath gyven, for whoe dares saye that the Church of Christe doth 
not at all communicate f the princelye power of her Lord ? Or 
whoe dares condemne the primitiue Churches for helpinge them- 
selues with some kinde of seruantes which were not prescribed, 
as that of the readers & acolathes howe ever it turned to abuse ?/ 

1 This was probably the way in which the third person originally spelled Ains- 
worth's name. The name, however, as thus written, has been crossed out, and 
" Haneswoorth " substituted for it in a fourth handwriting. 



QYour Mr Aias- 
worth ^ affirmes 
that it doth.] 



34 



AN ANSWER TO 



Butt take it that there is a sinne committed in the erection or 
alteracion of the ministerye in anie pointe, as there is in the choise 
of anye other kinde of magistrates then such as God prescribed, 
will it followe that men maye not comunicate with them ? If 
soe, then will it also followe that a Christian maie not lawfullye 
comunicate with a covetous or vnrighteous magistrate, which 
beyng true in respecte of his faulte, is not soe in respect of his 
office./ Your third is this : 

*Mr Robinson It was not lawfull for anye vnder the lawe to minister before the 
Lord save the Levites, nor to comunicate with anye other soe 
ministring. i. King. 12. ji. 2. Cron. 11. ig b' 26. 18. ig.j 

*Answer Your place out of the 2. Cron. 11. 19 is by some forgetfuUnes 
vtterlye mistaken. The others proue well that none but the 
Levites were capeable of the Preisthood, but this is vtterlye be- 
side the question, which is not whether a man maye comunicate 
with such a person as is vtterlye vncapeable of the ministerye, 
as all were then of the Preisthood but the Levites, but whether 
a man sinnes in comunicatyng with a man in excercyse of his 
ministerye, which hath beene vndertaken or imposed with some 
sinne./ 

You confound a nulletie & a defecte, as a man should saye the 
mariage which a man makes with his owne sister is vnlawfull 
and voyd, therefore also the mariage which a man makes with an 
vnbeleeving woman. One of these makes a nulletye of the act, 
the other a great fault, but not a nulletye./ 
Make your comparison even and it will teach you better. For 
lett the case be of a Levite or preist that otherwise liveth then 
God prescribed, or that was not sanctefied legallye accordyng to 
the purification of the Sanctuarye, or not learned in the lawes 
of God as he ought, did the people sinne in comunicating with his 
ministerye, yea or noe ? If not, as you must confes, seyng the 
prophettes and even Christ himself did comunicate in the holye 
thinges of God when the preistes were miserablye out of square, 
then consider that, likewise, the Lord's people maye comunicate 
in his worship without sinne in such a ministerye as is sinne- 
fully admitted or administreth sinnefullye in some personall 
respectes./ 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



35 



To this third you ioyne an amplification, that 

As Christe was not lesse faythfull or carefull, ^c, then Moses, *Mr Robinson 
I. Cor. 12. 5. Heb. j. i. 2, so neyther is he worthye of lesse honor 
in his ordinances, &°c., in the administration of his kingdome, 
which is a kingdome that cannott be shaken. Heb. 3. 3 ^ 12. 23. 
28./ I. Tim. 5. 22./ 



All this beyng graunted wins nothing to your cause for neyther 
doth this proue that Christ hath strictlye prescribed all circum- 
stances touching the ministerye of the newe Testament, seeing 
Moses did it not (for the orders of the Levites in the ould were 
otherwise ranged afterwardes by David ''), nor yf this were 
proued would anye thing followe but that there were a sinne 
committed in not observing in everye point the patterne, not 
that they which partake in the ministration should partake in the 
sinne of the minister, which point is so absurd as yf you will vp- 
hould it you must also graunt that whatsoeuer sinne the minister 
committes in the worke of ministration the people which com- 
municate with him must alsoe partake. For yf his entrance into 
the function shall defile them, much more his execution, seeyng 
they ioyne with him in this worke and not allwayes in the other./ 
Finallye, the faythfullnes of Christ in his house lyes not in pre- 
scribyng particulerly everye cyrcumstance & rite as Moses did, 
but in doeyng and prescribyng so much as he had in comission, 
that is, those thinges which doe in the Newe Testament belong 
essencially to God's worship, as did those particuler prescriptes 
of Moses in the Ould ; I thinke verylye that they are wide of the 
marke which drawe the comparsion (as some doe) to all externall 
thinges f or orders in the newe Testament, as yf those also were as 
essencyall partes of the newe Tabernacle as the beesome, ash- 
pans, &c., were of the ould./ 

It is true that you saye Christes kingdome cannott be shaken, 
but it is absurd to place that kingdome of Christ (as you doe) in 
externall & varyable cyrcumstances, wherin yf the kingdome of 
Christ had stood, it must haue beene shaken all to fitters longe 
agoe./ 

Your place of i. Tim. 5. 22, Laie not hands rashly e on anye man, 
&'€., neyther be partaker of other men's sinnes, comes in out of 



*Answer 



[" I. Chron. 23. 
24 et 24 chapters] 



Ct This your Mr 
Clifton is forced 
to confess in de- 
fending the bap- 
tisme of infants 
which Christ hath 
not by name 
prasscribed as 
Moses did cir- 
cumcision who 
showes that 
Christes faith- 
fulnes in the 
house of God lyes 
not in that par- 
ticular praescrip- 
tion of all thinges, 
but in performing 
all thinges which 
Moses and the 
prophets had sayd 
should come to 
passe. Page ii5[?] 
with 190 & 
198- I-] 



36 



AN ANSWER TO 



*Mr Robinson 

*Answer 



[t Namely as it 
is ordayned of 
God to be an 
immediate meanes 
of woorshipp 
in prayer, in 
preaching, and 
administration of 
sacraments, it is 
vnalterable, that 
is without sinne 
cannot be altered.] 

*Mr Robinson 



square to proue the kingdome of Christe to be vnshaken, but yf 
you meane to applye the latter parte of it (neyther be partaker 
of other men's sinnes) to this case of comunicatyng with a min- 
ister in whose manner of ordination there hath beene sinne com- 
mitted, you are much miscaryed, for though no man could laye 
on his hands & approue a sinnefull ordination without sinne, in as 
much as his consent was vnto the sinnefull worke, yett a man 
might lawfullye comunicate with that person in another worke 
which is not sinnefull, yea & disallowe his sinne in the entrance, 
even as a man maye lawfullye communicate at the Lord's table 
with an angrye or a covetous minister whose wrathfullnes or 
covetousnes he maie not approue, seing God forbids them./ 
Fourthly e (you saye), the ministerye is a meanes of God's worship 
and so vnalterable./ 

I answere both the antecedent and consequent are questionable. 
For yf you meane that the verye externall manner of calling, 
names, maintenance, and such Uke, is a meanes of God's worship 
(vnles you vnderstand a meanes remote), it is false & of such 
thinges is the question betwixt vs./ 

And when you saye therefore vnalterable, your inference is doubt- 
full, for not everye meanes of worship but these that be immedi- 
ate meanes & prescribed of God as meanes, are soe far forth vn- 
alterable that without sinne they cannott be altered, and so is 
the ministerye of the newe Testament.f/ 

But what yf one graunted you as much in the ordinacyon as in 
the execution & in the circumstances as in the substance ? All 
that you could winne is that the Church sinned in altering, but 
not that one might not comunicate with, such a ministracyon, 
vnles you will sale that we cannott comunicate in anye thing with 
that Church of God that sinneth against anye ordinance of Christ, 
which will put you to separate from all, yea from your owne, 
ministerye vnles you be without sinne in the execution of it./ 



Fiftlye, Christ (saie you) hath promised noe blessing to anye 
other ordinance then his owne. Math. 28. 20; Eph. 4. 11. 12. 

13-1 
* Answer If the ordinances of the Church answere the square of generall 
rules, they are in some sence Christes and soe capeable of a bless- 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



37 



ing, because suteable to that which he hath commaunded. Where- 
fore, yf you meane by ordinance a particular prescription, you 
are abused./ 

But graunt your assertion, what followes ? but that, therefore, 
so farre forth as the ministers are not the ordinance of Christe 
there is no blessing promised that Christ hath blessed the min- 
isterye of England, dare you denye ?/ 

But in the pointes of comunication with them in prayer, doc- 
trine, & sacramentes, they be the ordinances of Christe, how- 
euer in manner, or cyrcumstances of ordinacyon, or calling not 
soe. You doe throughout in this question confound the essencyall 
propertyes with necessarye cyrcumstances,^ as one should thus 
dispute: He that hath not all the essencyall partes of a man i. 
not man, therefore he that hath not two legs and two armes is 
noe man, for even as the legs or the armes are partes of a man 
not essencyall, but rather perficient, so are those cyrcumstances 
of the ministery which you stand on./ 



{y Accidental! 
corruptions 
mixed with 
baptisme in 
poperie destroyed 
not the substance, 
saith your Mr 
Clifton. Page 
171 et 207.] 

** Mr Robinson 



Lastlye (you sale), the officers which Christ hath placed ar 
sufficyent for the worke of the ministery e b° the edificacion of the 
bodye till the bodye be perfect, as appeareth in the place last 
named, Eph. 4. 11. 12. ij, &° so must feed theflocke till Christes 
appearance, i. Peter. ^. 1.2.4./ 

And how then ? Therefore it is not lawfull to comunicate with *Answer 
the pastor of St. Andrewes, for your question is of him./ 
But you meane in respect of the episcopall authoritie wheretoe 
the pastor of St. Andrewe is subiect. Now, yf your place proue 
the Bishop to be an vnnecessarye addicyon, doth it therefore 
proue the pastor or teacher there to be vnlawfull ? what logick 
call you this ? Yett doth not your place proue the Bishop to be 
vnnecessary, vnles it proue also the laie elder & deacon to be vn- 
necessarye, neyther of which are eyther named or signified in that 
place where you saye all the needfull ofi&cers are expressed ?/ 
Indeed, of these named some were, some are necessarye of simple 
necessitye & must be, but that there maie be noe paiticuler man- 
ner for disposing & orderyng of these beyond themselues will not 
foUowe, vnles we shall also cut of the authoritye of the particular 
congregacyons aswell as of Bishops or sinods in Church governe- 



38 



AN ANSWER TO 



merits, or saye that the externall discipline makes not to edifica- 
tion of the bodye of Christ./ 

You erre, therefore, in takyng that to be simplye, absolutelye, 
& onelye ascribed to these officers which is but principallye or 
specyallye attributed theretoe, for the Scripture doth also re- 
quire other helps, as namelye priuate admonicyon of others, & 
oure owne diligence for the edification of the bodye of Christe. 
The place of i. Pet. 5. i. 2. 4 is ill aleadged to proue that pastors 
& teachers & elders must feed the flocke till Christe come, al- 
though the thing be true./ 

Thus haue I gone through all your 6. reasons which proue not 
that everye alteracyon in cyrcumstances concerning the minis- 
terye is sinnefull, much lesse that to comunicate in God's true 
worship with such a ministerye as is (in some respecte) sinnefull 
is an vnlawfull thing./ 

Now followes your minor, that is, 
* Mr Robinson That the ministerye of St Andrewes in Norwich is another min- 
isterye then that which Christe hath left in his Church,/ for con- 
fir macy on wherof you first premise, that the or dinar ye minis- 
terye which Christe hath gyven 6* the Appostles ordeyned in every 
particular Church, are Bishops or elders &' deacons. Act 
6. I. 2. J. 4. 5. 6. &" 4. 23. &' 20. 17; Phil. I. i; i. Tim. i. 3; 
Titus I. 3. 4. 5, b'c.l 

This you confirme by three argumentes : 
*Mr Robinson i. First, that these Christe hath appoynted, the holye Ghost 

made, and the Appostles ordeyned, and so without the same or a 
greate power they maie not be reuersed. 

2. Secondlye, that for these alone and their choise the Lord hath 
taken order, i Tim. 3; Tit. i. 

3. Thirdlye, these alone are sufficyentfor the dispensation of the 
holye thinges of the Church, the elders of the spirituall thinges for 
the soule, the deacons of bodylye thinges for the bodye or outward 
man./ 

Then you inferre 

That the Church of England releyneth onlye the name of deacon- 
rye, establishing a most counterfeyte &* adulterate office vnder it./ 
2. St. Andrewes Church is not capeable of the true office of 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 39 

deaconrye (which all true Churches are) neyther hath it vse, or it 
maie he neuer had or shall haue, of the office of deaconrye estab- 
lished in the Church of England, as all true Churches haue of all 
true offices when the Lord afordeth fitt men; so that eyther the 
Church or the office {or rather both) must be of men b' not of God. 

I perceyue you abandon the governing elders as doth Mr Smyth, 
for those elders or Byshops you mencyon were preaching elders, 
about which poynt I will not striue against your iudgment. You 
also abandon the widdowes, although they and their choise also 
be described by St Paule, which you denye in saying that for 
these alone and their choise the Lord hath taken order./ 
The office of elders is not onely discribed but the necessitye of 
it in perpetuitye for the gathering together or consummation of 
the saLntes. Eph. 4./ 

Touching the deacon's office maie be more question, in asmuch 
as it is not properlye a spirituall ministration in regard whereof 
the Appostles put it of from themselues, and was excercised in 
nothinge perteyning to the edification of the conscyence in god- 
lynes, but (as you saie) for the owtward man./ 
Secondlye, howe ever, in those tymes it was necessarye the 
Churches should take oider for releife of theire owne poore mem- 
bers, least they should by want fall^ of or be exposed to the maUce 
& scorne of enemyes while yet the civill sword was against them ; 
yett when God adioyned the cyvill power to the Church, the 
care of releeuing the poore might comodiouslye fall vnto the 
cyvill magistrate's disposicion for anything I yett knowe, as well 
as vnto Nehemia, cap. 5. Nehemia. For it is noe proof e of per- 
petuitye that it was then ordeyned for the Churches, seyng the 
collection for the releife of Jerusalem was then a thing ordeyned 
in all the Churches of the Gentiles to be made everye Lord's 
daye, &c., which yet no man will saie must in like case be con- 
tinewed in such manner and forme but that princes maie com- 
maund such releife of their subiectes./ 

So, likewise, the AppostoHcall decrees for absteyning from blood 
& strangled was made by the holye Ghost, ordeyned by the Ap- 
postles, yett is not of perpetuitye, nor yett reversed by the same 

1 MS., fuU. 



40 AN ANSWER TO 

or greater authoritye, but determind (as all lawes essencyallye 
doe) with the reason or cause of makeyng it./ 
I speake not this to disproue the practize of the Christian 
Churches in reteyning still such an office as very comodious, but 
sincerely propound what I thinke touching the simple necessitie 
of it, where you cannott well blame men, seyng your self seeme 
to haue cutt of the coUedge of widdowes which yett were then in 
vse & ordeyned, as well as the deacons./ 

Wherefore, passing by what you sale of another kinde of deacon 
made in the English Churches, & what you ad of St. Andrewes 
incapacitye of true deacons, I content my self to saye that yf 
that Church doth want that kinde of ministerye, it foUowes not 
that it hath another kinde of ministerye then that which Christ 
hath erected, noe more then it followes that a man hath stollen 
goods in his house because he wanteth goods of his owne which 
ill debtors keepe from him. Onely when as you saie, that all 
true Churches haue vse of all true offices when the Lord affordeth fitte 
men, I must needs tell you that you speake both tymorouslye & 
without iudgment, — timorouslye in addyng when the Lord 
affordeth fitt men, as belike seeyng that sometyme true Churches 
want the vse of some true offices (as perhaps your owne) ; with- 
out iudgment in affirming that all true Churches haue vse of those 
offices which with one breath you confes they maye sometymes 
want for want of fitt men, & yet be true Churches./ 
Agayne when you conclude that in respect of the kinde of deacon 
which the Church of England makes, The Church or the office or 
rather both must be of men and not of God, you ouerlash extremelye; 
first, for the office, but cheifelye for the Church, for though that 
office take vp the name of deacon (which beyng in nature comon 
to anye ministerye was appropriated (by vse) to that ministerye 
about the poore), yea though also it be restreyned from a full 
imployment in the spirituall ministerye for a tyme, yett is nott 
the office simplie of men, but onely the Umitacyon and restreynt 
of it, like as the office of readyng the Scriptures in the congre- 
gacyon is not of men, although the choise of such a person & 
lymitacyon of so manye chapters at a tyme be humane./ 
But to saie that the Church is of men and not of God because it 
hath some ordinance not commanded or wanteth some that 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



41 



should be, is soe foule a conclusion as this should be against a 
Christian, to saie he wanteth of all that grace he should haue & 
hath in him some defectes, therefore he is not borne of God but 
rather of flesh & blood./ You add: 

But because there is noe such office of deaconship in St Andrew^ s * Mr Robinson 

which is the subiect of the question, therefore we will passe it over 

and come to the eldership which Christ hath left in his Church, 

which I denie to be found in St. Andrewes, whether we respect 

the office in the naturall and essentiall partes of it, or the calling 

vnto it prescribed by Christe./ 

It is tyme to passe it ouer when you haue spent your powder and * Answer 
shott vpon it. It had bene more proper to haue passed by it with 
seylence, seyng it was (as you nowe confes) impertinent to oure 
question. Lett vs now heare howe you proue St. Andrewes not 
to haue the eldership which Christ left in his Church in the 
naturall and essencyall partes of it. / You saye as followes :/ 

First then, this office of eldership is committed by Christ to a * Mr Robinson 

companye or colledg of elders, who are ioyntly to minister to the 

particuler Churches ouer which they are sett. Act. 14. 2j. &° 20. 

2y; Phil. i. i; Tit. i. j; i. Pet. 5. i. 2./ But St Andrewes 

neyther is nor canbe possessed of any such eldership thus ioyntlye 

to minister to it. Ergo./ 

Speak you this against St Andrewes or against all the Churches * Answer 

vnder heauen, even Mr Johnson's & your owne especyally ? 

which is further of from a colledg of elders then St Andrewes, for 

you are single^ & perhaps like soe to be, wheras St Andrewes hath 

three that doe administer to it, all preachers, and two of them 

noe whit inferior to your self in anye grace of God for the minis- 

terye, in some superior, as I suppose your humilitye will confes. 

But to your argument & proof es of it alleadged./ 

One of your places doe proue that there were in the first planted 

Churches, namelye in the cittyes first planted with religion, more 

ministers then one to attend that flocke committed to them, but 

' This passage indicates that there was no elder in Robinson's congregation at 
the time of the removal to Leyden. 



42 



AN ANSWER TO 



[1° Act. 19 
20.] 



* This section 
was added synce. 



proues not that that flocke consisted of one onelye particuler 
congregacyon, although (beyng within one cittye) it is called one, 
C»Act. II. 26.3 for that the Church of Antioch =* where the Christians so well 
ly Act. 3. 41. 47.] multiplied, of Jerusalem ^ wheretoe belonged more thousandes 
then could convenientlye be drawne to one assemblye, the 
Church of Ephesus " from whence all Asia tooke light, were one 
onelye particuler congregacyon is neyther certeyne nor prob- 
able; and the like maie be said of the rest. And then what haue 
you wonne ? seyng the question is of one particuler congregation 
in a cyttye, and you dispute of the Church of a cittye, which 
beyng in some respectes one maye be devided into manye par- 
ticuler branches and in all likely hood was then./ 
If it be obiected that in Jerusalem was one onely particuler con- 
gregation, because it is said. Act. 15. 9 [22], It seemed good to 
the Apostles & elders with the whole Church. &c. I answere that 
the phrase is captiouslye taken vp, for whole Church there 
ymportes that present companye of the brethren which were 
drawen together whose ioynt consent is noted in the word 
whole & doth not import that all the belieuers in lerusalem were 
present & gaue consent, for they were brethren, verse 10 [23], 
not sisters, who yet were members of the Church & might be 
more in number then the men./ 

giie. ^ generall assemblye drawen out of sundrie particuler con- 
gregacyons to the sinod maie be called the whole, not simplye 
but in a sorte, as the assemblie, i. King. 8, is called the congre- 
gacyon of all Israeli, which noe man will dare to sale was all 
vniuersallye present./ 

3''^- It is manifest & confessed that the beleeuers in lerusalem 
did meete to worship God in smaller companyes, which must be 
true Churches of God or false, for Churches theye were, that is 
assemblies drawen together to reUgious worship, thoughe reteyn- 
ing as it were to one consistorye./ 
[4. I. Pet. 5. 2.] Obiect not that it is said, Act. 20, to the elders of Ephesus, feed 
the flocke, as speaking of one, for so sayth Peter, feed the flocke, 
writyng to the elders of the lewish Churches dispersed in Pontus, 
Asia, Galatia, Capadocia, & Bythinia, in which you will not saie 
there was but one particuler Churche, yett all those particulers 
& all other are essencyallye but one flocke of Christe./ 



CVid. Act. 12. 4. 
What 12 
preachers of the 
Church !] 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 43 

If you instance that in the Actes 14 it is said theye ordeyned 
elders in euerye Church,/ I answere that the place is to be in- 
terpreted partlye by it self, which names the citties of Listra, 
Iconium, & Antiochia, where they ordeyned these elders (in 
euerye Church) ; partlye by another hke by you alleadged, wher 
Paule gaue Titus in care to ordeyne elders in euerye cittye in 
which there might be more then one particuler Church./ 
Adde thereto that the Appostles planted Churches onelye in the 
cittyes for the better spreadyng of religion into the villages & 
townes, & therefore you herein doe but equivocate in the name 
Churche, which sometymes imported all the seuerall Churches 
of one cittye, sometymes one seuerall assemblie./ 
But yf euerye particuler congregacyon had more ministers then 
one, howe proue you a coUedg ? Two are more then one, but les 
then three cannott make a colledg. And yf this were Christes 
ordynance, that euerye congregacyon must haue a colledg of 
ministers to governe it, I will not aske how countrye Churches & 
poore townes shall doe for maintenance, but when there wilbe 
such a flood of able ministers as will serue euerye congregacyon 
with a colledg of them./ 

2. Agayne, admitt that the Appostles ordeyned to euerye par- 
ticuler congregacyon a colledg or societie of ministers to governe 
it, when the graces of God for the ministery overflowed & 
Churches were fewe, will it foUowe that it ought euer so to be ? 
Can you yett see no difference betwixt an example, & a constitu- 
cyon, a presedent & a cannon, or a temporarye ordinance & one 
perpetuall ?/ 

3. Finallye, saye it ought to be soe perpetuallye & is not, doth this 
proue the ministerye of St Andrewes to be another ministerye 
then that which Christ hath ordeyned ? Can Mr Robinson see 
noe difference betwixt the kinde of ministery & manner of ad- 
ministracyon ? Were the Levites another ministerye in David's 
tyme then in Moses', because then cast into another order then 
they serued in before ? You might as well saye you are another 
man then you were in Norwich because you are no we at Leyden, 
for such accidentall changes change not the essencyall beyng or 
names of thinges, and you vndertooke to speake of essencyall 
partes, not accidentall./ 



44 



AN ANSWER TO 



* Ms Robinson 



* I. Tim. I. 3. 
3. 15, &4. II. 



Come we to your second reason:/ 

The elders which Christe hath left are to feed the flocke of Christ, 

vnder Christe the cheife Sheepheard immediatly, &* are countable 

to noe other sheepheard but him alone spirituallye./ i. Pet. 5. 

I. 2. J. 4. But the ministers of St Andrew's are to feed not 

onlie Christes flocke but the Bishop's flocke to whome as to an 

high Shepheard they must be countable. Ergo, the ministers of 

St. Andrewes are not such as Christ hath left to his Churche./ 

*Answer Countable to none but to Christ spirituallye, that is ecclesiasti- 

callye, what odds betwyxt these elders & a pope saue in number ? 

for this is his primacye to be in spirituall thinges the cheifest & 

countable to none but to Christe. What not to the congregacyon 

where they are ? perhaps yes, but to noe other Shephard, that 

is to the sheepe, but to noe shephard. What, not to the rest of 

the colledge of elders, but everye one entyer ? yes perhaps to the 

shephards, but not to one shephard./ 

So wretched a thing and soe blinde is a contentious mynde, that 
to winne what it striues for will lose more then it winnes./ 
But how falslye this is said that the ministers of Christe are 
countable to none but Christe, appeares by that account which 
Paule bids Tymothye take of the ministers, & yett Timothye was 
a shephard & was not Christe./ 

If you obiect that Tymothye was an evangeUst and that calling 
nowe expired, it's not to the point, for it sufficeth to proue that 
the elders male possiblie be accountant to some other shephard 
then to Christe, which you gaynsayed./ 

And seyng all your prescription for your colledg of elders is from 
those t)nnes in which the Appostles lyved, & evangelistes alsoe 
to take a reckoning of them, with what face can you plead from 
these tymes a perpetuall colledg of elders, & refuse from the 
order of the same tymes a superioritye of some power over the 
same, whether in one person or in manye./ 
Your onelye place to proue your assertion is miserablye alleadged 
out of I. Pet. 5. I. 2. 3. 4, which onelye proues that the ministers 
must gyue account to Christe as to the great shephard, but 
not that they must gyue it to him alone; you forgett that he was 
an Apostle that wrote this whome (you thinke) they were to 
account vnto./ 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 45 

The like I saie to the first branch of your assertion, That the 
ministers are to feed the flocke of Christe, vnder Christ ymediatlye, 
that is without subiection to anye ecclesiasticall or spirituall 
power. For proofe wherof you bring nothing. Against which I 
returne, that all the elders which the Appostles ordeyned were 
subiect to them and to the evangelistes, and thoughe that power 
in these particuler functions haue ceased, nor canbe resumed in 
the right of those determined offices, yet such a power must 
be continued, whether in some selected persons such as were at 
the first called Bishops or in the consent & sinods of manie, 
otherwise the particuler Churches shalbe without bond or order. 
So vnwiselye do you provide for ech particuler congregacyon a 
liberty which must needs preiudice the vniuersall and as by other 
your argumentes you condemne all the ministerye that is or hath 
beene since the Apostles as a false ministerye, so doe you by this, 
which is noe small sinne in you./ 

As touching your minor, That the ministerye of St Andrewes feeds 
7iot Christes flocke onelye, but the Bishop's, it is fitter of scorne then 
of answere, beyng but a scorne and returnable vpon your self, 
who feed not oneUe the flocke of Christe, but your owne, I trowe, 
els whye are you the pastor of it ? 

Is it soe absurd a thing that that flocke which is properlye 
Christes maie in some sense be called the Bishop's, that you 
should make as it were two flockes of one for the phrase sake ? 
The Bishop is a seruant to that flocke of which Christe is the 
Lord./ 

When you ad that the minister is to give his account to the Bishop 
as to an high shepheard, yf you meane in such a sense as Christe 
is the high shephard, you knowe you slaunder; yf you meane as 
to an higher (touching the administracyon of censures) then the 
pastor is, it is true, and yf this be an expression of the minister's 
(which you haue not proued) , yet doth it not proue his ministerye 
in the holye thinges not to be of God more then the vsurpation 
of the Romanes ouer the highe preistes office in placeyng & dis- 
placeyng proued a nuUetye of all his preistlye actions in God's 
worship. And this might serue for answere to your next argu- 
ment, but that I desire to gyue you a full hearing./ 



46 



AN ANSWER TO 



Your third reason to proue that St Andrewes hath not essencyally 
such elders as Christ left in his Church thus followes: 



* Ms Robinson The feedyng which Christes inioynes his ministers is the teaching 
&" ouerseeyng or governing the flocke by such elders. Act. 20. 
28; I. Thes. 5. 12. 13; I. Cor. 3. i. 4. 5.^5. 17./ 

*Answer This which you make your third argument is for a good parte of 

it the same with your second, for what meane these words hy 

such elders, but that these elders should feed & governe the par- 

ticuler flockes ymediatlye vnder Christe, that is to saie without 

subiection to anye other ecclesiasticall power; which if you 

proued as you offer to proue, it would onely conclude that the 

elders of St. Andrewes are oppressed and abridged of that power 

which they ought to haue, but this will not proue that therefore 

they haue not Christes ministerye, for, because they are robbed 

of some, doe they forfeyt the rest of their right ?/ 

**2 But, indeed, you proue not that the ministers of Christe ought 

thus (immediatlye vnder Christe) to feed & governe the Churches, 

for Act. 20. 28 showes that the elders are bound to feed the 

flocke, & I. Thes. 5. .12. 13 showes that they are sett ouer them 

in the Lord; but neyther of these showe that they were to doe 

theire ofiice imediatlye vnder Christ without subiection to other 

[» Deut. 16. 18.] ecclesiasticall officers more then the charge which Moses ^ and 

[y 2. Chron. 19. lehosaphat ^ gaue to the officers and ludges for doyng iustice 

6- 7] doth proue that they were absolute commaunders imedatlye 

vnder God himself./ 

Your third place out of i. Cor. 3. i. 4. 5 showes not that the 
elders were not subject to others, but that our dependance must 
not be vpon the person of anye minister, but vpon Christe that 
died for vs./ Your fourth place of i. Cor. 5. 17 verse is mis- 
taken, beyng but 13 verses in the chapter./ 
**3 You haue not onelie not proued what you vndertooke by these 
scriptures but you haue proued the contrarye, for I am sure you 
will confesse the elders of Ephesus (to whome Paule giues charge 
to feed the flocke that depended on them) and soe of Thessalon- 
ica, to haue beene ecclesiasticallye subiect to the Appostle that 
spake this to them, which showes that subiection to an higher 
ecclesiasticall power maye stand well with that power which the 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



47 



Lord gaue vnto the particuler pastor of anye such Church, & 
that they male feed and governe the flocke though others ouersee 
bothe them and their flockes, as the Appostles & theire assignes, 
the evangelistes, did these pastors./ 

Nor onlye soe but this president doth shewe it necessarye, that **4 
for the good governing of the particuler Churches there be some 
superintendent power which by ordering & combyning the seuerall 
flockes of Christe, maie prouide for the good of that vniuersall 
bodye of Christe, which consisteth of his electe dispersed in all 
the particulers. But to meete with this you adde:/ 

And so we shall finde throughout the Newe Testament that the * Mr Robinson 

Appostles neuer ordeined or tooke course to haue ordeyned 

eyther newe Appostles or evangelistes successiuelie, but still 

elders in euerye particuler Church by whome the Church of God 

was to befedde, the holie thinges of God to be administred in theire 

seuerall charges./ 

A successiue ministerye of evangelistes (properlye vnderstood) *Answer 
cannott be without a successiue ministery of Appostles vpon 
which that was to attend for particuler dispatches; nor can 
there be anye Appostles properlye but such as sawe the Lord in 
the flesh and had immediate calling from God with vniuersall 
commission ouer all the world. It was, therefore, absolutelye 
impossible for the Appostles to ordeyne successiue Appostles or 
evangeUstes which you vnnecessarelye affirme, & Mr lohnson 
proues verye idolye at large, as yf we tooke vpon to be Appostles 
or evangelistes. It is also most certeyne that the Appostles 
ordeyned noe other kinde of standyng minsterye in the particuler 
Churches then pastors or elders, but what then ? 
If hence you had inferred that there is no ecclesiasticall function 
which is by dyvine institution sett aboue the pastors, you had 
said truelie, and no more then Hierome, Augustyne and other 
fathers, the Cannon Lawe, the Counsell of Basill, all the Bishops 
of England in King Henry the Eightes tyme, & generally all the 
reformed Churches doe receyue, which hould that by divine 
institucyon a Bishop and an elder are one, not in name onelie 
(as some latelye haue trifled), but in function, as the Scripture 
doth most clearlye showe./ 



48 



AN ANSWER TO 



[As appeares by But when you hence inferre (as it seemes Aerius ^ did) that it is 



Augustine — 
Episcopum non 
debere, &c.3 



not lawfull to constitute a Bishop ouer a presbiter, or anye eccle- 
siastical! person to haue superintendence ouer the pastors, you 
gather it weakelye, as yf the Appostles had forbidden what- 
soeuer they did not commaund in externall discipline, or the 
scripture had as carefullye determined the changeable cyrcum- 
stances thereof as the most necessarye pointes of oure saluation./ 
The lawfulnes & the necessitie of some superintendent power ouer 
the particuler pastors to keep them in good order & vnitye of 
doctrine appeares in the presidentes of that power which the 
Appostles committed to the evangeliste Timothy, even where 
he had estabUshed elders./ i. Tim. 1.3./ 

The com[u]nion of the Churches & their mutuall edification, the 
correction of the pastors themselues & much more the ordinacyon 
of them (which neuer was gyuen into the people's hands) doe 
showe the necessitye of some superintendent ecclesiasticall power 
ouer the particuler both flockes & shepheardes./ 
What is then to be said ? Verelye, that a superior power ouer 
the elders must euer remayne grounded partlye vpon the Ap- 
postolicall presidents, & partlye vpon the twoe inviolable lawes 
of necessitye and charitie, as without which the good of the 
vniuersall cannott be possibHe attended & confirmed by this 
devine cannon, God is not the God of confusion hut of order./ 
But, as touching the particuler manner of executing this power, 
it seemed good to the holye Ghost, not to prescribe anye one 
waye, but for the better comoditie of the Church in all places & 
ages to leaue that at libertie, bounded onelye with generall rules, 
that the Churches might with good conscyence erecte or em- 
brace one or another manner as necessitye or advantage should 
perswade them,/ 

And hence it came that where noe evangelistes were, or where 
the evangelistes (which tooke their authorytye from the Ap- 
postles) ceased, the Churches of cittyes and their subburbs were 
first governed by comon consent of the pastors, where the 
superior power ouer ech particuler was placed in the consent of 
all or the most, as it is in euerye popular estate; and this though 

^ Aerius of Pontus, head of the hospital or asylum at Sebaste about the middle 
of the fourth century. 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



49 



it was (as lerome sayth) the first fashion, yett was not prescribed 
by the Appostles soe to be./ 

Wherefore, when the Churches found inconvenience of this order, 
because men drewe to parties & into factions, some preuayUng 
(as euer falls out in such a gouernment) aboue the rest, the pas- 
tors by consent found it requisite to choose out one to whome by 
waye of specyaltye they gaue the name of Bishop & to whome 
they gaue also not an emptye title but some authoritye and 
power of gouerment though not all, or all alone to him./ 

And this, as it began in some places before all the Appostles were [Hieron. Epist. 
dead, as at Alexandria from Marke, so it spread (by the lykyng fd Euagrium; et 
of it) ouer all the world in that age & hath euer since continewed. ^^ '^""^' ^^^' ^ '-' 
Howe euer Bishops afterward drewe more and more to them, till 
at length it came to greate abuse./ 

Nowe as the Churches of citties & villages belonging to them 
erected the Bishops for superinspection ouer the elders and 
Churches therof , so vpon the like reasons the Bishops of sundrye 
cittyes found it necessarye to submitt them selues to the gouer- 
ment of a Metrapolitane, whose seate was in some cheife cittie, 
and this in tyme of persecution & by consent./ 
Afterwards also they rose to Archbishops & to the four greate 
Patriarkes (which seeme to haue beene establyshed at the fyrst 
Nicen counsell) as a convenient meanes both to righte particuler 
insolencyes, to keepe the Churches in socyetye, to hould out of 
the comunion of all Churches such as were iustlye caste out of 
anye, & for the better gathering of particuler sinods or generall 
counselles (by leaue of Kinges & Emperors) through decision 
wherof the appeales and controuersies & other comon affayres 
of the Church were handled & determined./ 
It is true that amongst the Patriarkes also they thought fitt to 
giue precedencye to one (which was but a poynt of honor and 
order), & this fell (for the glorye of the emperiall cittye) to Rome./ 
But when the Bishop of Constantinople (whither the emperiall 
seate was retyred) began to contend for a newe & insolent title 
of vniuersall Bishop, the Bishop of Rome ouerwrought him, & 
contrarye to all former intencyons & institucyons made himself 
vniuersall Bishop, from whence he became that monster and 
man of sinne which exalted it self aboue all that is called God, 



50 AN ANSWER TO 

for as the Emperours coruptlye suffered his papall vsurpation 
ouer the Churches to their irreparable damage, soe God after- 
wards suffered it ouer the Emperores themselues, to their most 
iust & shamefull scorne & punishment./ 

Now, Sir, before you come to the papall tyrannye which liftes it 
self aboue all that is called God, there fell sundrye different 
orders or degrees of superintendencye which the Churches first 
tooke vpp by consent, while the magistrate was an enimye to the 
fayth, & after receyued by the allowance & authoritye of the 
Christian magistrate, vnto whose place the disposinge of externall 
thinges in the Church doth properlie belonge by devine institu- 
cyon as the Lord's Lieutenent in his place./ 
So then, even as the cyvill power is divine in the generall nature 
[" Rom. 13. I.] for which it is said to be of God,'" but in the particuler kindes 
[»> I. Pet. 2. 13.] thereof is humane ^ & soe called, so is the superintendent eccle- 
siasticall power also./ 

And the ordering or setting thereof is eyther extraordinarye or 
ordinarye, extraordinarye eyther by divine comission or by dis- 
pensacion, by dyvine commission once onelye in the Appostles, 
into whose hands Christ did committ that power ouer all Churches 
which ordinarelye perteynes to the magistrates in theire seuerall 
kingdomes or seigniories, or by dispensacyon, & that often in 
case of meere necessitye, as in the tymes of open persecution of 
the fayth, when the Churches for theire owne advantage male 
constitute the best orders for themselues without consent of anye 
magistrate, like as one assaulted then lawfullye protectes his life 
with his owne sword where he cannott call for the protection of 
the la we./ 

But ordinarelye it belonges vnto the magistrate's place by dyvine 
institucion to appoynt such externall formes & orders of the 
discipline as (sortyng with the generall rules of scripture) maye 
best advance the Church of God, of whyche God hath made him 
a member, a protector & father, & of whome he will take an ac- 
count therof ./ 

So that it male be at the magistrate's pleasure to establish an 
externall regiment by vse of sinods, Archbishop, & Bishops as in 
the first well ordered churches, or to reduce the regiment of 
Churches to the ioynte gouerment of the elders in their cittyes 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 5 1 

or cyrcuites, or to devise anie other good waye,/ allwayes pro- 
vided that there be some ecclesiasticall coercyue power sett ouer 
ech particuler, and that the generall good of the Church may be 
still intended, and that those essencyall callinges and administra- 
tions which Christ hath prescribed be vphoulden, the comon 
rules of the word in all thinges obserued for edification./ 
I retume to you at lengthe, therefore, & confes that the Appostles 
tooke order onelye for that which is at all tymes & to all particuler 
Churches simplie necessary e, that is the standing & particuler 
ministerye of pastors or elders & their ministration, but for the 
superinspection of them did not ordeyne successiue evangeUstes 
but onelye lest the president of their superintendent power as 
necessarye to be practized, though not vnder the title, or by 
proper right of evangelistes, nor confined vnto anye one or other 
manner; wherein they haue provided for the varyetyes of tymes, 
ages, places, & occasions that might ensue, without detractyng 
any thing from the magistrates' authoritye, to whome (by 
dyvine ordinance) in ordinarye that care dothe belong, as it 
hath beene executed before & since the coming of Christ in the 
flesh. Wherefore the ministerye of elders male execute that 
which Christe hath particulerly inioyned them, although some 
ecclesiasticall authoritie be sett ouer them to see them doe 
dutyes whether it be of Bishops, elders, or sinods./ 
Now haueing cast out of your third argument that branch that 
belonged not to it but to your second, that is the consideracyon 
of the elders feeding & gouerning vnder the inspection of others, 
lett vs se it as it is, a third argument distinct from the second./ 

The feedyng which Christ inioynes his ministers is the teaching * Mr Robinson 
&° ouerseeyng of theflocke, but for the ministerye of St Andrewes 
as it is vtterlye prohibited all gouerment which the Bishop in- 
grosseth into his owne hands, that he maie lord it ouer both min- 
ister d° people, so neyther is feedyng by preaching necessarely 
inioyned it, ^c./ 

You bombast your minor proposicyon with the proofes of it 
vnseasonablye, which it behooueth to seuer & soe to make your 
proposicyon orderlye & negatiue to the maior as you should haue 
done in this manner./ 



52 AN ANSWER TO 

But the feeding which is inioyned the ministerye of St Andrewes 
is not the teaching & ouerseeing of the flockes. Therefore what ? 
Therefore the feeding and gouerning which is inioyned the min- 
istery of St Andrewes (you meane by the Bishops or the lawe) 
is not the feeding which Christ inioyned his ministers. 
Is not this the direct conclusion of these premisses ?/ 
He looses himself sorelye in disputacyon that looses the question 
as you haue done in this argument, for you should haue concluded 
that therefore the ministerye in nature and essence is not the 
ministerye of Christe, instead wherof you conclude that the 
officers of the Church doe not vrge that dutye vpon the ministerye 
which Christe specyallye required, which if it were altogether 
true, as it is not, showed onelye grosse faulte in the externall 
discipline of the Church or officers of it, but did not showe that 
therefore the ministerye in their owne nature & essence were 
aUenated from Christes institucion./ 

For is an inferior magistrate in the nature of his office changed 
from God's institution, yf a negligent Prince forgett to presse 
vpon him the proper duties of his function ? Were even obedient 
children essencyallye changed from the condicyon of naturall 
sonnes amonge the lewes, because the pharisies pressed not the 
commaundement of honouryng father and mother as God would, 
but contrarilye ? Mat. 15. 

Is a chast wife estranged from the essencyall propertyes of a wife, 
yf the lawes punish not adultrye, or her owne husband require 
not chastitye of her ?/ 

I euer tooke it that the essentiall or materiall dutyes of an office 
were in the nature therof, whether men inioyned them or not, 
and so will you thinke when you consider better of it, and then 
will you see the pouertye of this argument, which because it 
could not ouerthrowe the cause tilted besides it./ 
So then yf this third argument be wholye graunted our cause is 
not hurte, because not touched in the conclusion, howebeit your 
assumption is not altogether true, namelie that the feeding inioyned 
by the Church of England vpon the pastors is not by preaching, and 
gouerning the flockes committed to them, of which you doe con- 
fusedlye mix the proofe with your proposition, saying: 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



S3 



First the minis terye of St. Andrewes is vtterlye prohibited all * Mr Robinson 
go uerment which the Bishop ingrosseth into his owne hands that 
he maie lord it ouer both minister and people, secondlye that 
preaching is not necessarelye inioyned./ 

You forgett all moderation when you saie the ministerye of St. *Answer 
Andrewes is vtterlye prohibited all goiierment./ 
Is there noe goverment of the Church in feeding it by doctrine ? 
Is it not the cheife parte of spirituall gouerment ? in soe much as 
the same woord which signifies to feed, signifies also to gouerne, 
when God saith to leremye, that he sett him ouer kinges and 
nations to plant & plucke vp, &c., gaue he him noe gouerment ? 
And yett he gaue him none but by preaching. Is not the min- 
isterye of God's word the arme of his power, the scepter of his 
kingdome ? Is not labouring in the word & doctrine made the 
more honorable branch of gouerment, i. Tim. 5. 17 ? What a 
man are you to saie that he that hath the word and sacramentes 
and administration of prayers alsoe committed to his care is pro- 
hibited all gouerment in the Churche!/ 

Againe,euery minister both maie & ought pubhkelye to admonish, 
exhorte, rebuke, convince knowen sinnes or errors, & at his ordi- 
nacyon is made to promise to giue his faythfull dilligence alwayes 
soe to administer the doctrine & discipline as Christ hath ap- 
poynted & that Church receyued it./ 

Againe, he maye present anye knowen offendor to the churches 
ofl&cers, he is bound to suspend from the Lord's table anye notore- 
ous offendor or ignorant person. He maie possiblie be assistant 
to the Bishop in ordination or maie be taken by the Bishop for 
an assistant in his sentences of depriuation, suspenseon, or ex- 
comunication, and yett you saie he is vtterUe prohibited all 
gouerment, as yf you had resolued vtterlie to abandon all mod- 
estye in reproueyng./ 

But you thinke belike he loses all that has not all, or not all he 
should./ Finally the Bishop by the kinges authoritye & consent 
of the parUament houldeth that which you saie he ingrosseth, & 
is made the comon seruant of the Churches in that ofiice wherein 
you saie he lords ouer them, & in his office is restreyned by lawes 
in the matters & manner of his proceedyng, nor hath anie power 



54 



AN ANSWER TO 



of imposeyng anie lawe vpon the consciences of men or anie 
external! order but that which is by lawe established./ 
Wherein yf anie of them affect or vse to much greatnes forgetting 
them selues and their bretheren, their institucyon and trust, it 
is a great, but yett a personal!, not a functional! fault as you 
make it./ 

No we as tliis of goverment is vntrue, soe is that of preacliing 
partlie guileful!, partlye false; guileful!, when you put in the 
word necessarelie which was not in your maior proposicyon, as yf 
preaching were not at all enioyned because not necessarylie, 
wherin yett it is vntrue (as shall appeare in answere of that you 
add for proofe of it), and yf it were true, is not sufficyent to proue 
your intencion as hath beene shewed./ 

* Robinson The ministerye or rather indeed the preisthood of St Andrewes 

df so of all other the parishes of the land stands in ofering vp the 
daylye sacrifize of the service booke, in marijng, burying, church- 
ing of women, ministring sacramentes in forme, readynge homi- 
lyes, &° performing other cannonicall obedience accordyng to the 
oath of cannonicall obedience, but for preaching the Gospell or 
that parte of it which the lawe alloweth, it is not essencyall to the 
ministery of England, but an accidentall, personall qualification, 
there beyng manye hundreds in the land true ministers accordyng 
to the English cannon which neyther doe nor can preach./ 

*Answer To proue that preaching is not necessarelie inioyned, you first 
ramble ouer for your pleasure some other thinges that are neces- 
sarelye inioyned, as yf the more vehement imposicion of those 
thinges not so necessarye as preaching would proue this were not 
necessarelie required, like as one should saie. Men at [?] manages 
take bondes for ioynters, dowryes, and such like, & none for 
honestye, therefore chastitye or fidelitye is not necessarylye by 
them required; as yf soe be that pointe was not vnderstood in 
the verye nature of mariage (though there be noe mention made 
of it) as an essencyall & the most important point which needed 
not (as the other) to be spoken of particulerlie./ 
But when you saie the ministerye of the English Church stands 
in these thinges, as yf nothing els were to be done (for that 
wherein a thing standes conteynes it), you knowe you speake 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 55 

vnrighteouslie, for you & I & others because we could not obserue 
all other thinges required, were put from preaching as from a 
specyall parte of our ministerye, therebye to compell vs to the 
other thinges, which surelie they would not haue done, yf our 
ministerye had stood in those thinges onelye wherein you place 
it./ Now whether they doe not presse these lesser thinges to 
much & esteeme that greater to little, our Lord will iudge, but 
we are partyes and should feare least their hard vsage put vs 
out of order, seeyng Salomon hath said that oppression makes 
euen a wise man mad, of which sentence I beseech you to con- 
sider wiselie./ 

But preaching (saie you) is not essenceall hut an accedentall, 
personall, qualeji cation./ 

Accedentall & personall sometymes importes inherent & proper 
qualetyes & are not directlye opposite to essentiall in euery 
sense thereof./ 

But by other tearmes of casuall and accedentall ornament after 
added, you showe your self to meane an accessarye & not neces- 
sarye facultie, which words yf you had onelie vsed might haue 
gyuen you light inough to showe theire owne falshood, for asmuch 
as at the ordinacyon of euerye elder according to the Church of 
England the Bishop requireth of him both guiftes to teach & a 
promise of doyng it, noe mencyon being then made of mariage, 
burying, churching of women, or the rest of your addicions, nor 
of the oath of obedience. Beside you knowe that the readyng 
of homilies beying intended for a supplie of preachinge & the 
inioyning of such pastors as could not preach to provide at the 
leaste monthlie sermons doth manifestlye showe that oure 
Church did euer hould preaching not a casuall ornament but a 
necessarye facultye in a pastor./ And soe all our learned divines 
though favorers of the state haue written, & preachers taught, 
in that Church./ 

But you instance: 

There be manye hundreds in the land true ministers accordyng * Mr Robinson 
to the English cannon which neyther do nor can precLch, therefore 
preaching is not essencyall or necessarye./ 



S6 



AN ANSWER TO 



*Answer 



[^■f For as nullum 
is sometymes 
irriium 

sometymes onely 
vnperfect, so 
verum is some- 
tymes perfect, 
sometymes 
existens.'2 



Howe manie hundreds I knowe not, but I suppose the ages to 
come will hardlie beleiue that so shamefull a botch could be in 
cure so long & not be cured./ 

But to your argument I answere that it is a fallacye, a dicto 
secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter./ 

For yf by true ministers accordyng to the canon you meane such as 
the canon allowes as able & sufficyent to take cure of soules, as 
wherevnto the guifte of preaching is not necessarye, you then lett 
your tongue speake & aske your heart noe leaue, but yf by true 
ministers you meane that they are counted in some sense, & so 
true,t that their actions & administrations in prayer & the 
sacramentes maie not be abhorred or counted merelie voyd, then 
you speake truth but lose your argument, seyng you knowe that 
preaching maie still be held essencyall or necessarye to the func- 
tion of the ministerye, though the want of it doe not to all pur- 
poses destroye the ministerye, as the memorye is necessarye to 
man, the want whereof doth not vtterlie deface him or denie the 
name of man to him./ 

If you yet trauayle vpon the word essencyall as perhaps you will, 
you must remember that essenceall is eyther simplie soe, as with- 
out which a thing cannot be, or in a sorte soe, as without which 
a thing cannott be entire or good./ 

In the course of your argument you seemed to intend no more 
by essencyall but that which was necessary lie required, opposed 
to a casuall ornament./ 

If from essencyall in that sense you slip to essencyall in another 
sence, as it maie importe a thing simplie necessarye, then do you 
but plaie the sophister vnder the ambiguitie of words & withall 
bring your self into a newe laborinth./ 

For yf you hould the guifte of preaching to be- simplie essencyall 
to the minister's office then cannott the minister's ofi&ce be with- 
out it nor it without the minister's ofl&ce for an houre, so a man 
cannott haue the guifte of preaching vnles he be a minister, & he 
that is once the minister of a flocke must euer be able to preach, 
for yf euer by sicknes or other occasion he be disabled to preach, 
his ofi&ce by this rule is voyd, inasmuch as nothing can stand 
without that which is simplie essencyall to it, noe not for a mo- 
ment, by which absurdities you maie be moued to see that the 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



57 



guifte of preaching is not essencyall to the office of the minis- 
terye in such a meaning, but rather that it is essencyall to the 
office as a most necessarye facultie in him that shalbe an able & 
a worthie minister./ 

And yf you come once to this, you come first to that which the 
Church of England professeth, nameUe that though the vnpreach- 
ing ministers be in some sense true ministers & not simplie priuate 
persons, haueing that publique admittance to the Churches ser- 
vice which makes them externallye & in the eye of the Church 
ministers or seruantes thereof, so as theire actions are not meerelye 
voyd as of men vncalled, yett they are not worthye or sufficyent 
ministers, because they want that guift & abiUtie of preaching 
which is as essencyall, materiall, or necessarye to an elder as the 
vse of his senses or memorye to a man./ 

Wherefore, yf you be beaten out of the ambiguitye of these two 
words, true &° essencyall, & from that sophisme which is a dicto 
secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, this blowen argument (as a 
bladder pricked) falleth flatt./ 

And this alone {which I desire maie be well considered) shewes * Mr Robinson 

howe vtterlie vnlawfull, &° so all communion with it, the office of 

the minister ye in England is, whereof preaching is no essencyall 

parte, but a casuall or accidentall ornament which, whether it 

come or come not, makes nothing to the beyng or essencyall con- 

stitucyon of the ministerye accordyng to which we must iudge 

of it. I 

The poynt which you desire to haue well considered is worthie *Answer 
of it, for it will shew a marveylous want of iudgment or of sin- 
ceritie in you, euen in you that take so much vpon you, for you 
assume that to the constitucyon of a minister in England preach- 
ing makes nothing essencyallye, that is necessarilye, but is a casuall 
ornament, in which eyther you playe the sophister vnder couert 
of phrases (of which before) or els you plaie the beare, which 
enraged with hunger ffies vpon anie thinge she meetes, whether 
it serue for praye or not./ 

For what aduised man durst saie as you doe, knowing that the 
verie forme of constituting ministers which that Church ob- 
senieth, thorowe which you once passed, doth point out this 



58 AN ANSWER TO 

dutye of preaching as the most specyall of the elder's function 
not onelie by the scriptures selected for that end to be then read, 
as Act. 20 & I. Tim. 3. i, but in the Bishop's premonityon to 
him that is to be ordeyned & charge imposed vpon him in the 
very ordinacyon it self to preache the word of God, &c./ 
No we yf you still obiect a contrary e tolleracyon, whether it came 
by necessitye of tymes or negligence of men or both, it is nothing 
to the constitucyon of the Church by which (you saie) one ought 
to iudge./ 

Fynallie, I invert your argument thus, The feedyng which Christ 
enioyned his pastors is by preaching his doctrine & gouerning his 
people, but such is the feedyng of the ministerye of St. Andrewes, 
therefore it is such as Christe hath inioyned & consequentHe such 
as you sinne to forsake, much more to condemne as you doe./ 
Now, haueyng followed the threed of your argument strictlie to 
the end of it, lett me turne backe to showe you the printes of your 
feete, by which you maie consider their need of washing./ 
You vndertooke to speake onelie of St Andrewes Church where 
you knowe there is an excellent ministerye. What made you 
leape ouer that pale sett vp by your consent & fall into a course 
after the poore halting ministerye of other places. Was this 
place to hott for your conscyence, when you came to oppose the 
ministerye therof , or had you hope to couer your separation from 
so holye & reuerend a ministerye by an outcrye made against the 
hundreds of ignorant or careles fellowes in other places, as Florus ^ 
hid his owne oppression of the lewes vnder complainte of their 
mutinies./ Mr Robinson, Mr Robinson, beleiue it, the Lord 
lesus will not put vp the high scome you haue cast vp against 
his worthye seruantes and ordinances, though you crie out neuer 
so lowd or iustlie of other men's vnworthines! Our God will not 
be thus deluded./ 

What meane you to come in with this correction, {or rather the 
preisthood of St Andrewes./)} For yf you take preisthood as the 
booke of ordinacyon doth, it is no more then eldership, beyng 
deryued from the Greeke Presbuter, & then your or rather, &c., 
is such a correction, as yf one haueyng said ghost (should saie) 
or rather spiritt, which is the same./ 

'■ Gessius Florus, procurator of Judaea, a.d. 64-65. 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



59 



But if you meane vnder another scornefull sense, which the 

popish preistes haue purchased to that word to vilifie the Lord's 

ministerye, as it appeares you doe, your sinne is not little, your 

repentance hath need be great./ 

And what meane you to compare the forme of devine seruice **3. 

prescribed to the daylie sacrifice of the popish masse preistes that 

vndertake to offer a daylie & propiciatory sacrifice for sinnes? 

Do you thinke that whatsoeuer is hatefull is fitt for you to speake, 

or vs to heare, be it neuer so iniurious ?/ Or doe you forgett 

that railers, as well as murtherers, are debarred the kingdome of 

God ? Or do you not knowe that this is rayling ?/ 

Whye talke you also to vs of the oath of cannonicall obedience, **4. 

which in England is limitted to althinges good and lawfull, & 

yett ympose vpon euery proselite admitted to your comunion a 

protestation against all those Churches with which you haue [Mrlohason's 

nothing to doe ? Is not this as much as the oath of cannonicall congregation, if 

obedience ? 

Your next argument to proue the ministerye of St Andrewes not to 

be that which Christ hath left in his Church is from respecte of the 

calHng, which I will sett downe and a[n]swere by peices, as it lyes./ 



not your owne, 
are sayd to 
require it./] 



* Mr Robinson 



Thus much for the office, nowe followes the entrance./ 
An vnlawfull entrance or calling into an office makes the ad- 
ministracyon of it 6* comunion in it vnlawfull. Numbers i6. 
40; loh. 10. I. 9; Heb. 5. 4. 5; I. Tim. 5. 22./ 

Your proposicyon is not vniuersallye true & therein sophisticall, *Answer 

while you affirme that of euerye vnlawfull entrance, which is 

onely true of some./ 

Some thinges are vnlawfull whollye so as they make a meere 

nuUetye of the action, as to marye another man's wife, or within 

the degrees of blood prohibited./ 

Some thinges are vnlawfull in parte onelie, when anie branch of 

the lawe is broken which makes a fault in the action but not a 

nulletye of it, as for a man to marye with a notorious vnchast 

woman./ 

Where a nulletye is in the action there the administration or 

execution of anie calling is vnlawfull toties quoties as in the case 

of incestious mariage./ 



6o AN ANSWER TO 

Nor can anie repentance for the sinne committed in the entrance 
legitimate the execution, because the first action is voyd./ 
But where the faulte is in parte onelie, it doth not passe into the 
administracyon, but restes in that one act of entrance. Hence it 
is that a man which hath vnlawfully maried with an vnchast 
woman, maye yett lawfullye vse his vnlawfull mariage. So in case 
of magistracye, yf a man simplie vsurp his administracyon [he] is 
in euerye acte sinnefull, because he hath no calling. But yf a man 
be corrupthe called, his entrance is vnlawfull, but not soe his ad- 
ministration, beyng entred, because the lawfullnes of administra- 
cion followes simplie the calling of the lawfullnes of the calling./ 
Your proposition therefore beyng indefinite or vniuersall of 
euerye vnlawfull entrance is false, nor do your proofes make it 
good, whereof but one toucheth the matter, that is Numb. i6. 
40, That no stranger which is not of the seede of Aaron come neare 
to ojfer incense before the Lord, that he be not like to Korathe &" his 
company. This place proues well that both administration and 
comunion therein is vnlawfull, where there is a meere vsurpacyon 
of the ministerye as was in Korath. For when God had once 
ordeyned the sonnes of Aaron alone to that ministerye & ab- 
soluteUe precluded all others, none elles could enter the function 
howe well soeuer qualified otherwise./ But what is this to an 
entrance not simphe but in some respectes vnlawfull, as all our 
actions are in the sight of God vnpure, yet not ympurities. 
Bring a scripture to proue the administration of Aaron's sonnes 
& comunion with them to haue beene vnlawfull, when such of 
them entred the ofiice as were not qualefyed with that knowledge 
and sanctetye which God required in the preistes (whose intrance 
therefore was in some sorte vnlawfull, though not as this other 
vtterUe and to all intentes voyd), and then you speake to the 
pointe, els you trifle and compare thinges vnlike./ 
Your second place out of loh. 10. i & 9 is cleane without the 
circle, haueing noe word in it that touches the externall calling 
or entrance of the ministers, for Christ (alluding to the fashion 
of that tyme & countrye where they housed their sheepe by 
night for safetye & lead them out in the daie to pasture, the shep- 
heard goyng in & out first) say th, verse i , that he that enters not 
by the dore but clymes another waye is a theife, & in the 9 verse, 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 6 1 

that he himself is the dore, &c., meaning to showe that he is both 
the dore by which the sheepe (his electe) goe in for protection & 
out to finde pasture, that is comfort to their soules, & also that 
he is the dore or passage by which all true shepheards of his 
sheepe goe in and out before his sheepe to lead them, that is, 
they desire to knowe nothing among the sheepe but Christ 
crucyfyed & teach the people of God noe other dore or waie vnto 
life but the Lord lesus, & yf anie man beate out an other waie to 
the sheepe then this, he is a robber, which not haueing the dore 
opened vnto him clymes in at the windowe. This place then will 
proue that yf anye man preach anye other way of saluation but 
by the Lord lesus, he is as a theife stoUen in vpon the flocke to 
doe mischeife, he is noe shephard./ 

Now what is this to the purpose, yea rather how much against 
you, & howe fitt to proue the ministery of St Andrewes to be en- 
tred by the dore, which preaches (for saluation) nothing but the 
Lord lesus & that with great sinceritye & evidence of the holye 
Ghost, your conscyence beyng witnes./ 

Your third place of Heb. 5- 4- 5 showes that as noe man did (that 
is lawfully) take the office of the preisthood vpon him, except 
he were called of God as Aaron was, verse 4,/ & that Christ was 
called to be oure high preist, verse 5,/ what inferre you from 
hence ? that a man must haue even in euerye point such a par- 
ticuler calHng from God to the ministerye as Aaron had, because 
it is said as Aaron ? Yf so, then no preist after his tyme was 
lawfullye called. Yf you meane that a man must haue a calling 
from God, it is graunted, but yf you thinke he hath noe calling 
from God whoe in his calling varyeth at all from the prescription 
of God, then you misse as before, confoundyng those thinges 
which are simplie necessarye with those which are onelye com- 
odious and requisite./ 

Or, yf you intend thereby to proue that a man entring other or 
otherwise then God would haue him sinneth, take you that also, 
but yf you thinke it will followe that therefore all his adminis- 
tracyon is vnlawfuU, & soe communion with him, you againe 
mistake./ For what saie you to the administration of those 
preistes which vndertooke the holie seruice of the Lord, the office 
of Aaron, to serue theire owne bellyes ? did they enter lawfully or 



62 AN ANSWER TO 

was their administracyon to all intentes vnlawfull & so comunion 
with them ?/ 

Your last place is i. Tim. 5. 22, wherein Paul sayth to Tymothie, 
Ley hands suddenlie on noe man neyther be partaker of other men's 
sinnes./ 

I mervayle at your libertye in cyteyng the holye Scripture, for 
what's this to your purpose ?/ 

Tymothye shall sinne yf he laye hands rashlie on anie man (that 
is) to ordeyne anie minister & make himself partaker with their 
sinnes that do soe or with the sinne of him that vnworthelie seekes 
that office, what then ? Therefore yf anie man enter sinnefullye 
his administration is vnlawfull or comunion with it. Howe 
hanges this together ?/ 

Perhaps you meane that in comunion with a minister that enters 
sinnefullye a man must needs sinne. Verehe, yf he commune 
with him in the sinne of his entrance, that is help to committ it, 
abett it, or allowe it, as Tymothye must haue done in laying on 
his hands rashelie; but to thinke that he that comunicates with 
him in the administration of the Lord's hoHe thinges doth sinne, 
is a strange imagination without ground./ 
Paul to Tymothye settes downe what ministers should be ad- 
mitted. I demand [?] yf anye covetous person, or contentious, or 
ill husband to his wife, or yong scoUer were admitted, whether 
the entrance of that man should be.lawfull, yea or noe ? You 
must saie noe./ 

I aske then whether yf such a man preached Christ though for 
gaine or envye his administration should defile me ? & I thinke 
you will saie noe. I am sure Paule would who reioyceth that 
Christ was preached of some though of en vie./ 
Finallye, you are not well advised to make comunion in the ad- 
ministracion vnlawfull, where the administracyon it self is vnlaw- 
full not in the kinde thereof but in that minister's person, for 
some respectes./ For by this it must followe, that the ordinances 
of God shalbe lawfull or vnlawfull to the people of God not ac- 
cording to the Lord's institucyon & theire owne holie vse of them, 
but according to the minister's vprightnes or worthines & sin- 
ceritye in his entrance and administration./ Your assumption 
followes thus: 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



63 



But the waie or entrance into the ministerye is vnlawfull &' a by * Mr Robinson 

path as will appeare yf we compare it with that holye and high 

waie which the Scriptures open for all the ministers of the Lord 

to passe by, which is the free voluntarye choise &" election of 

that particuler charge wherein they are to minister. Numb, i 

[?]. 8. g. 10; I. Sam. y; Ezek. jj. 2; Act. i. 15. 23. df 6. 2. j. 

4. &° 14. 2j; 2. Cor. 8. ig; Tit. i. 5, ^c./ 

If a man graunted your minor, yett were your argument naught, *Answer 
vnles the entrance you speake of were to all intents vnlawfull & 
voyd, seyng as hath beene shewed not euerye vnlawfulnes in the 
entrance makes the administration vnlawfull, but onelye such a 
one as makes a nulletye, which is rather noe entrance then an vn- 
lawfull entrance, yf one speake properlye./ 

But lett vs see howe well you proue your assumption./ 

Ever ye entrance other then by the free choyse of the people is vn- [M Robinson] 
lawfull sale you, but such is the entrance of the present ministerye 
of St. Andrewes in Norwich (for of it wee speake), therefore it 
was vnlawfull./ 

To proue euerye entrance other then by the free choise of the [Answer] 
people to be vnlawfull, you alledge manie textes, by all 8° euerye 
of which you saie it appeares that the officers of the Church of God 
were not onelye called &° appointed to their ministerye in the face 
and presence of the particuler congregations wherein they were to 
serue, but also by their free choise and election./ I looked for a 
lawe and you gyue me an example, yea to proue that it is vnlaw- 
full to be otherwise then thus, you proue that it was lawfuUye 
thus vsed ; as yf a man would proue that it is not lawfull for vs 
to weare shorte garmentes as we doe, because it appeareth that 
the people of God vsed long ones, or that we maye not make 
oure feastes at dinner because they made theires at supper, or 
maie not giue a certeyne pension to maynteyne a minister because 
the tythes of the lewes & contributions of the Christian Churches 
were vncerteyne./ 

If it be said these cases are not like, that saie I must be proued, 
or els it is as easilye denied as said. At least this will serue to 
showe that the argument from examples alone is not a rule of 
prescription./ 



64 AN ANSWER TO 

But it maie be the places alleaged by you doe not euerye of them 
so much as showe such a president, much lesse that such a thing 
must euer be./ 

The first place is, Numbers 8. 9. 10, which proues not that the 
Levites were appoynted by the free choise & election of the 
people, but contrarilye that God first elected them, vers. 6, to 
that seruice, and then appoynted the people to showe their 
acceptance of his ordinance by puttyng their hands vpon the 
Levites' heads, &c./ Nor was this a successiue act of the partic- 
uler congregations in which the Levites serued successiuelie, but 
one acte of the whole collectiue state of Israeli once for all./ 
So it houlds neyther in the poynt of a particuler congregacyon, nor 
of free election, but of approbation, these ceremonyes beyng 
enioyned the people that they might knowe that these were 
ministers nowe assigned vnto them of God, sayth Peter Marter. 
I. Sam: 7./ 
Ci. Sam. 7.] The second place is nothing at all of free election but of Eleazer's 
consecracyon (a person elected by God's lawe) by the vse of such 
legall ceremonies as God had appoynted. Nor was this for the 
seruice of one particuler congregacyon, but of all that should 
resort vnto the arke of God, which had noe hand in the con- 
secracion of this preist, who yett was to minister vnto them as 
well as to the men of Chireath learim, who consecrated him. 
And in that poynt is this place also against you, and showes that 
a man maye lawfully administer to such as chose or call him nott, 
yf this were a choise or calling of Eleazer to the ministerye, as you 
take it./ 

Your third place of Ezechiel ^:^. 2 is les to the matter, for the 
speech is not of a spirituall watchman chosen by the people to 
watch ouer their soules as you (hungry of proofes) doe take it, 
but of a watchman sett vppon the guard of the cittye as sentinell, 
who was worthye to dye yf he did not discouer the enemie's ap- 
proaches; from which the Lord takes a similitude to informe the 
prophett that likewise he should die yf he giue nott warning to 
the people, over which (not the people but) God himself without 
the people had made him a watchman, verse 7./ 
Your fourth place is Act. i. 15. 23 which showes that vppon the 
Appostle Peter's speech vnto the brethren there assembled they 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 65 

presented two, wherof one was to succeed into ludas his place, 
but the 24. 25. 26 verses showe that they did not choose that one, 
but by prayer besought God to showe which of these twoe he 
had chosen, who answered them by guydyng the lott vpon 
Mathias. Soe farre is this place from proveing the people's 
choise, that it showes the choise of God not of the people as was 
necessarye in the calKng of an Appostle, which must be from 
God & not of men. Wherefore this place also is ill cyted, for as 
the choise was God's & not the people's, so the seruice he was 
chosen for was not proper to that assemblie which (you saie) 
chose him, but vniuersall to all the Churches as of an Appostle. 
And yett you alleadge this to proue that a particuler congrega- 
tion must choose that minister that is to serue it./ 
Your 5th place is Act. 6. 2. 3. 4, which is not of elders but of 
deacons in whose election the Appostles themselues would haue 
noe hand because there was a murmuring against their adminis- 
tracyon, as yf they had beene parciall in disposing the Church 
almes, wherefore to remoue all suspicion they aduise the brethren 
to choose out from among themselues fitt persons, &c. Out of 
which I suppose you will not inferre that the minister maie haue 
noe hand in the election of a deacon because the Appostles had 
none in the very acte of this election, and yett this aswell as anie 
thinge maie be vrged from theire example./ 
Secondlye, this is an example onelie which makes not a lawe & 
was occasioned by a particuler reason. Besides that the same 
place shewes, first, that till this change the Appostles did execute 
that care themselues which were not elected thereto by the people. 
And 2"^, that vpon an inconvenience obserued this newe order 
was made; in which 2 circumstances the place is against you, 
the former shewing that this office maie possiblie be administred 
by other then such selected deacons, the latter that matters of 
externall forme (not simpHe prescribed) maie be altered vpon 
occasion to the better. 

Finallye, yf this example bynde, it byndeth to the number of vij 
deacons in euerye congregacyon, because the Appostles require 
so manie, which point I suppose you neyther obserue nor require, 
and^therefore must loose the benefitt of that testimonye to which 
you stand not, as the lawyers saie./ 



66 AN ANSWER TO 

Your 6 place is Act. 14. 23, where oure translacyon sayth, And 
when they {Paule and Barnabas) had ordeyned them elders by elec- 
tion in every cittye, &"€., where you seeme to haue a faire example 
of elders ordeyned by election. But herein the translacyon hath 
mislead you, for the originall it self hath not the word election 
in it, and yett vpon that is all your buildinge framed. You will 
saie the word x^tporoj^e'co there vsed doth signifie to ordeyne by 
election or suffrage, as the etymologye of rijv x^^po- reivu showes. 
To which I answere, first, that though the word in his originall 
signification importe to electe & ordeyne by liftyng vp of hands 
or suffrage, yett in comon vse it also signifies to ordeyne with- 
out anie suffrage of hands or election, like as the word elder origi- 
nally e signifies an elderlie man, yett in vse came to signifie an 
officer, though he were a verye younge man, as Timothie was./ 
And besides that, Budeus in his commentaryes & Stephen in 
his Thesaurus of the Greeke tongue showe you sundrie examples 
where this word signifies simplie to create or ordeyne without 
suffrage. You shall understand that it is vsed in the Scriptures 
to signifie ordeyning where noe suffrage or election could be ad- 
ioyned, as Act 10. 41, where it is said, not to all the people, but 
to vs the witnesses (irpoKex^'-POTOvrjixevoLs) foreordeyned of God, 
&c. I am sure you will not saie God foreordeyned them witnesses 
by election or liftyng vp of men's hands, & yett there is the verye 
same word xeiporoi'e'aj, which in this place you build vpon, onelye 
compounded with a preposition which makes (to this pointe) 
noe difference at all./ 

Moreouer, when the word is vsed to signifie creation by suffrage 
or election, there (for ought I knowe) it is referred to those 
persons in whome the suffrage doth lye, not vnto others that vse 
their suffrage. But in this place it is not said of the churches but 
of Paule & Barnabas (xHpoTovrjaavTes) ordeyning elders vnto 
them, &c., makeyng this ordinacyon to be the acte not of the 
seuerall Churches, but of Paule & Barnabas, which showes that 
in this place the word must importe ordination by their authoritye, 
not election by the Churches themselues; and then this place 
is as dyrectlie against you as anie could be alleadged./ But yf 
a man gaue you this place freelie as showing the election of theis 
ministers by the people, what had you wonne but an approued 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 67 

example, which proueyng that such a course is lawful! (of which 
no man doubtes) will not inforce that it is perpetuallye necessarye 
as you assume./ Finally, yf we must fetch all from examples of 
those tymes, then from this example will followe that a particuler 
congregacyon hath not the sole power of ordeyning her officers, 
in as much as Paule & Barnabas which were no standing mem- 
bers of these churches ordeyned (though by election) the min- 
isters thereof. So you lose in the shiere what you winne in the 
hundred./ 

Your 7 place of 2. Cor. 8. 19, speaking (not of elders or anye 
standing ministerye, but of a brother whose praise was in the 
Ghospell, appoynted to accompanie St Paule in carying the 
Churches' benevolence to Jerusalem) saith that this brother was 
also chosen of the Churches, vseing againe the word x^i-porovew, 
which beyng affirmed of the Churches male seeme to importe an 
election by suffrage, yett yf I maie speake what I thinke, I take 
it not to importe so much, but onelie the Churches to whome 
Paule did recomend him, had gyuen their consent, & so had 
ordeyned him, not by puttyng it to scrutenye, hands, or voyces, 
whether he or another, but allowing him onelie. Otherwise he 
must haue beene put to newe election at euerye particuler Church, 
which had beene to so worthie a man a greate dyspargement & 
noe little slacking of the busines. Nowe yf you graunt that ap- 
probation of him was a good assignement & in stead of an 
election, then followes that the people's approbation of a min- 
inster presented to them or imposed on them maie be called as 
well as this a choosing of him, & where are you then ? 
But take it as yf this brother was put vpon a newe election at 
euerye Church (which is absurd to thinke) & that by free elec- 
tion of eche he had beene chosen, will this proue that no min- 
ister maie be ordeyned to anie service of anie particuler Church 
but by election of that Church ? Will an affirmatiue example in 
one kinde make a negatiue lawe in all kindes of ministeryes ? 
Yea, that you maie out of this place see howe poorelye you reason 
from this example, consider that the Appostle doth appointe & 
send this brother ordeyned by other Churches not to be likewise 
elected by the Church of Corynth, but to be accepted of them as 
a man worthye to be trusted with their almes, seing his praise 



68 



AN ANSWER TO 



was in the Ghospell and other churches had (by their assent) ap- 
pointed him thereto. So then to the Church of Corinth he was 
in this to minister as well as to others, and yett was not com- 
mitted to the pleasure of their election but imposed or commended 
onelye. He instances ill that bringes an instance directUe against 
his cause as you in this haue done. 
« Verse i6, &c. Moreouer, yf you had not beene to much transported you might 
in the verye same chapter ^ haue obserued that Titus without 
election of anye Church, at Paule's intreatie or rather of his owne 
inclination was sent or went to Corinth and did vndertake the 
self same kinde of ministration for which the Appostle there 
giues him honor. So this place showes against you, that a man 
male be appointed to doe & maie doe service to a particuler con- 
gregacyon both lawfully and honorablie, though he be not 
elected by the same congregacyon therevnto, vnles you will 
condem Titus whome Paul comends./ 

Your last place is Titus i. verses 5. 6, For this cause left I the in 
Creta that thou shouldest redresse things amiss &' ordeyne elders in 
every cittye, as I appoynted the. As one appealed from King 
Phillip sleeping to King Phillip wakeing, so doe I from Mr 
Robinson to Mr Robinson touching this place, for soe farre is 
this from poyntyng out the election of the Churches, that it 
onelie speakes of the ordinacion be trusted to Titus, the evange- 
[koi KaTaarrjajis list, — to Titus not to the Churches. Nor doth he here vse the 

Kara toMv rpea- ^ord x^i-porovico as Act 14 but another whereto you can make 
pvTepovs.] , 

no such pretence. 

And, indeed, this place is rather against the election of the people 

then for it, in asmuch as Paul professeth to haue lefte Titus in 

Creta as to ordeyne ministers, so to redresse the thinges amisse. 

Wherefore, yf you will not siae he must haue the consent of 

the people or leaue thinges vnredressed, neyther maie you 

saie he was to ordeyne ministers by their election or to ordeyne 

none./ 

But you alleadge this place, as yf Paul had not written to Titus 

but to the Churches of Creta to ordeyne their owne ministers 

[by their election, or to ordeyne none].^ So credulous a thing 



* In the MS. the words, ' by their election or to ordeyne none,' have been crossed 



out. 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 69 

is a strong conceit, that it seemeth to possesse what it desires, [ludges 5.3 
as Siserar's mother reckoned of conquest in her sonnes ouer- 
throwe. I conclude then that neyther anye one nor all the places 
doe proue that which you said was proued by all & euerye of 
them, yea that some of them do soe manifestlie disproue it, as 
I should wonder you could so much mistake, saueyng that it is 
more wonder that anie man sees the truthe then that manie 
are bhnded & see it not./ 

It remaines onelie that I invert this argument vpon you in this 
manner, Yf so be sundrie ministers & ministeryes haue lawfullye 
serued extraordinarye and ordinarye to those particuler congre- 
gacions by which they were nott elected, then the free election 
of the congregacion is not simplie necessarye./ 
But sundrie ministers & ministeryes extraordinary & ordinarye 
haue lawfully serued such congregacyons as did not elect them./ 
Therefore the free election of the particuler congregacyons is 
not simpUe necessarye to the constitution of a lawfull ministerie./ 
The consequence of the maior is cleare./ 

The minor, or assumption, is manifest not onelye in the extra- 
ordinarye calHnges of prophettes, Appostles, and evangeUstes, 
which had no callyng by the election of those congregacyons to 
which they were sent; but in the ordinarye callinges, aswell in 
the ould Testament as in the newe, for none of the preistes or 
Levites had their particuler ordinacyon or calhnge from the par- 
ticuler congregacyons, especyallye not the high preistes which 
administred to all the tribes, but succeeded ordinaryUe, or was 
extraordinarelye put in by the civill maiestrate as Zadock by 
Salamon withoute the people's election./ 

And so David disposed the preistes and Levites into orders of 
ministracion; lehoiada the high preist appoynted officers, &c., 
in the minoritye of loash, 2. Chron. 23. 18; lehosophat settes of 
the preistes & Levites for the Judgment & cause of the Lord, 2. 
Chron. 19. 8. 9; Hezekia commaundes (without asking the 
people's good will) the preistes vnto their dutyes, 2. Chron. 29. 
4. 5. II, ordeyned the courses of the preistes and Levites, cap. 
31. 2, after the people were gone home, verse i, & tooke order 
for their maynteynance (not by consent but) by commaund, 
verse 4, & all this well and vprightlye, verse 20; losiah sett the 



70 



AN ANSWER TO 



[« Brownes treat- 
ise of reformation 
without tarrying; 
Barrow against 
Gifford.i] 
^ [Joseph, PhUo 
Judaeus, Euse- 
bius, Zonaras & 
Cedrinus show.] 
[Vide Renfer- 
rium (Rhenferd) 
Tom. 2 de pontific. 
IsraeUticis, pag. 
833 et 846.] 



preistes & Levites in their charges, 2. Chron. 35. 2. 3. 4, &c.; 
nor onelie the kinges of luda, of whome some of your leaders 
haue said they did this as figures of Christ =* (which yf it were 
true is yett to the poynt nowe in question no help), but euen 
the heathen princes that reigned ouer them, and specially e the 
Romanes that put in and out their highe preistes at their pleasure 
without consent of the people or nation,'' who yett were iustlye 
reputed the true preistes of the Lord & are soe esteemed by some 
of your side,*= in as much as theye were of the posteritye of Levye, 
though not of Aaron./ 

In the newe Testament Peeter & lohn not as Appostles but as 
delegates were sent by the Church of Jerusalem to Samaria 
vncalled. Acts 8. 14. And so Barnabas to Antioch, Actes 11. 12, 
to which Church he after ministred till God specyallye called 
him awaye, 13. i. 2, & this not by divine instincte as he was called 
thence, but at the first by the Church of Jerusalem after (as it 
maie seeme) by his owne zeale./ 

Paule leaues Titus in Creta & Timothy to Ephesus (not by their 
election but) by his owne authoretie & gyues them order to 
ordeyne the ordinary ministers without anye mencyon of taking 
or seeking the people's consent therein. Titus is vsed not in the 
evangehstes office of teaching, but in the matter of gathering 
for Jerusalem by Paul's appoyntment & his owne consent, not 
by election of the Church. 2. Cor. 8. 16./ 
If you repUe that these were extraordinary e ministeryes, I 
answere that so were some of those examples which you alleadged, 
as that of Mathias, Act. i, of that brother i. Cor. 8; and secondlie 
that all myne are not extraordinarye./ 

If you reply that the Appostles beyng interessed in all Churches 
might send ministers to doe service there without the people's 
election, you then graunt the cause, namelie that a ministerye 
hath beene sett lawfullye ouer some Churches without election 
thereof & consequenthe maie be againe./ 

Att the least this is wonne, that seeyng you argue onelye from 
examples, & I haue brought examples also against you, that 
therefore the thinge be less indifferent in it self to be swayed by 
other accessorye cyrcumstances, both waies beyng lawfuU & 

^ Barrowe's book is entitled A Plaine Refutation, 1591. 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 7 1 

neyther simplie necessarye, as the contrarietie of approued ex- 
amples manifests vnto vs./ 

Nowe haueing answered your scriptures lett vs see your reason 
subioyned to confirme the same proposition./ 

And good reason why the Church should both well knowe b'freelie * Mr Robinson 
approue her ministers to whome she is to committ her self, soules, 
6* bodyes, a most precious treasure purchased with the blood of 
Christe./ 

Knowledg & free approbation maie fall to those Churches which *Answer 
haue not the power of free election, which you seeme to con- 
found, but taking your meaning to be (as it is) of free election, 
I answere, that yf it be verye good reason it should be soe yet 
followes it not, that this is the onelye lawfuU waie of the Lord, 
or that where a thing is not done after the best manner, there it 
is not done at all./ 

It is good reason that in choise of magistrates the first respect **i 
should be to the feare of God & wisdome more then to byrth or 
wealth, but yf men crosse this good reason, is the choise void ? 
Is not such a maiestrate God's ordinance ?/ 

Secondly, this good reason of youres is not simpHe good nor **2 
allwayes, for what yf the Churches be infected with error, dis- 
tracted with faction, cannott accord in their election, be par- 
tiallye caryed to an ill choise (which thinges haue often fallen 
oute), is it not, then, as good reason that a ministerye well 
knowne & approued by others that can iudge be sett ouer them, 
as it is good reason to bynde a distracted person ? Verelye 
sundrye of the best reformed Churches haue thought it fitt to 
limmitt the people's freedome, confining their election (or 
rather approbacyon) to such persons as the ministerye haue first 
approued, rather then to put all vpon theire discretion. And 
though the first Churches did necessarilye carrye this busines [f After the 
by the people's free assent, when by reason of persecution they Appostles' 
could not doe otherwise, yett found they so manye inconven- 
iences as they tooke the first oportunetie of restreyning the same 
by decrees, which newe remedye in tyme proued a newe mis- 
cheife, as all thinges maie doe by sinn [?] and corruption./ 
Thirdlie, I would knowe howe farre this goode reason extends it **3 



72 AN ANSWER TO 

self, whether to all those soules & bodyes of which the ministerye 
taketh charge, or but to some. If you sale to some onelie, then 
your rule breakes, for when Christ hath equally purchased all, 
& all are to be serued by that ministerye, it should foUowe that 
all must choose their minister freelie, that is by their owne Ukeyng 
& consent, one aswell as another./ 

If all must haue hand in election then women, seruantes, children 
(beyng comunicantes) , for these haue soules & bodyes purchased 
by the blood of Christ & are members of the Church./ 
Yf you like not this you abandon your principle & are gone, and 
yf you replie that wyves, children, & seruantes giue their consent 
in their husbands, fathers, & masters, then you confesse that a 
free election of all the members of the Church is not necessarelie 
executed by their particuler persons, but male be done by com- 
mitties. Yf so, then by more or fewer, & then whye not by a 
fewe put in trust ? which is the case of the English Churches, 
which by consent of Parliament haue submitted themselues to 
the present order of election, & ordination by the patron & 
Bishop, reteyning to themselues onelie a negatiue power, in case 
the person so chosen be not legallye qualefied. 
Finally e, yf this reason be simplie good & necessarye then noe 
minister is lawfullye called vnles all the soules he takes charge 
of doe both well knowe him & freely approue his election. So 
when the greater parte chooses one whome the lesser parte 
would not haue, this minister is a lawfull minister onelye to that 
parte which freely consented to his choise, vnlawfuU to that 
parte vpon which (by multitude of other men's voyces) he is 
imposed sore against their wills./ 

Doe you not see whither these conceytes will dryue you, to what 
absurdetyes & extremityes ? for you will not sale (I suppose) 
that a minister chosen by the greater parte is not a lawfull min- 
ister to the lesser. You cannott sale the lesser chose him freelye, 
for they stroue against him har telle, nor can you sale they con- 
sented freelye to his choise albeit they had yeilded the election 
to the greater parte, for this is but in a sorte & not simplie a free 
consent. And yf this will serue, then all the Churches in England 
male be said to haue chosen freelye, in as much as they haue 
submitted to the lawes, which order the elections of the minis- 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



73 



ters as they nowe stand. So, then, eyther you must vngraple or 
sinke with vs, for you cannott saie that waie is the ordinance of 
God more then this, God haveing mercifullye lefte the particuler 
fashion at libertie, that the Churches might serue themselues of 
one or another manner for their greatest commoditye. And you 
verelye are too masterlye when you take vpon you to bynde the 
spouse of Christe where her Lord hath left her free./ 
I conclude therefore, that neyther the scriptures aleadged nor 
your reason haue confirmed this proposition, that the Lord's 
waye by which the ministerye must enter is the free election of 
the people, which yf you had proued, it would haue showed that 
a sinne is committed by breach vpon the Churches liber tye, but 
not the ministery thus imposed is therefore simplie vnlawfuU; or 
that the Churches might not lawfullye eate the good meate that 
is minced & put into theire mouthes, because they are not suf- 
fered to carue it for themselues, as were convenient. Nowe lett 
vs examyne your assumption touching St Andrewes./ 

But the waye by which the ministers of St Andrewes enter is not * Mr Robinson 
the playne waye of the Lord but the crooked path of a Lord 
Bishop's ordinacion &° approbacyon ^ of a patron's presen- 
tacyon, yea whether the people will or noe. 

The byas of humane corruption maie drawe men wrong euen in *Answer 
the streightest alley, but the cause is then in the byas, not in the 
waye. Nowe howe crookedlye some patrons present & Bishops 
sometymes admitte should not be remembred without greife, 
nor can be denyed without impudencye, but to showe that this is 
the fault of the men, not of the order, it ought to be considered 
that some patrons doe present & the Bishopps sometymes admitt 
farre worthier men then even a good people would chuse for 
themselues, and while you seeme to immagine the path of populer 
election to be so right on, you admire [?] that you knowe not, 
consider not, what hath beene & seeme to thinke anie thing better 
then that which is present, which is noe point of wisedome./ 
But to passe by that, I marvayle howe a man professing sin- 
ceritye, as you doe, could force his conscyence so farre as to saie, 
that the ministery of St Andrewes came not in by the Lord's 
plaine waye of election, seyng you knowe the minister therof is 



74 



AN ANSWER TO 



freelye chosen by the congregacyon not by the patron nor by 
the Bishop. And yf you replie the Bishop must gyue his appro- 
bacyon, I answere the confirmacyon of the Bishop denyes not free 
election to the people, no more then to the patrone. But you 
thinke it a small matter to confound theis two faculties, as one 
should saie the knightes of ParHament are not freelye chosen, 
because the kinge confirmes the election./ 
But to carye this vntruthe you obiect it to your self & offer a 
defense sayinge: 

* Robinson Yf it be answered that St Andrewes hath the choise of her min- 

isters, I doe instance that the libertye it hath nothing helpeth, all 
thinges beyng rightly considered./ 

*Answer If it be truelye answered that St Andrewes hath the choise of 
her ministers, then is your assumption false, and your argument 
against that ministerye (in respect of the entrance therof ) vtterlye 
outgrowne, but you tell vs it helpeth not. Indeed, if to enter by 
that waie which euen nowe you said was the high and holie waye 
of the Lord will not help, what help then ? what will please you ? 
verelye nothing helps to perswade, when men resolue to be per- 
swaded by nothing, but why helps it not ? 

* Mr Robinson For first St Andrewes is not that Church of Christe, that heauenlie 
lerusalem, which Christe hath enfranchised with that and the like 
liberties. It is not a people separated &' sanctefied from the 
world into holye covenant with God, but a confused asemblie, &* 
so in that confusion hath her self receyued noe power from Christe, 
&° so can gyue none to anye other./ 

*Answer All this graunted would not vphould your assumption, which is 
de facto not de iure, wherein you denyed St Andrewes minister 
to haue entred by the free election of that Church to which he 
serues, for were the election voyd, yett it might be voluntarilye, 
which you denyed./ 

Secondlye, in this argument you begg the question, as yf you 
could not disproue the entrance of that ministerye, vnles we 
graunt you that assembhe to be noe true Church of Christe, 
which you knowe we denye, yett we confesse it is not that Church 
of Christ, that heauenlie lerusalem, which is the mother of vs all, 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



75 



into which no vncleane thing can enter; nor is youres at Leyden 
or Amstredam vnles you be the CathoUke Church. But it is a 
small thing with you & your partie oftentymes to confound the 
Catholike Church,t which consistes onelie of the first borne whose 
names are written in heauen, & the particuler visible Churches, 
wherein maie be electe and reprobate, vesselles of honor & of 
dishonor, & so to abuse your selues. But you meane to denye 
that St Andrewes is anie true visible Church, saying. It is not a 
people separate b' sanctefied, hut a confused assemblie, &"€./ 
This we haue disproued before, haueing shewed that ho we euer 
there maie be in that assemblie some notorious offenders (which 
is more then I knowe), yett all of them are by profession sepa- 
rated vnto God in an holy covenant, which externall profession 
is that which giues the essence to a visible Church in that it is 
visible, as some of your owne against them selues confes./ 
But you confound, first, internall sanctetye, which is essencyall 
to euery true member of Christe, with the outward profession, 
which geives beyng to a visible Church in that it is visible; & 
secondlye, the solemnitie of declaring the covenant with the 
covenant it self as one should confound the kinges title or en- 
trance to the crowne with the solemnetie of his coronation, which 
made him not to be king anie more then he was without it. And 
thus your selves confoundyng different thinges, you crye out 
of confusion in the Churches./ 

Wherefore, this instance is void & maie be thus inverted, St 
Andrew's is a true visible Church of Christ, therefore it hath 
power from Christ to elect a minister, & the election is good./ 
Your second reason followes, but ere we goe further lett me praye 
you nowe to marke, that yf all your principles be true, it is vnpos- 
sible that euer there should be true Church or true minister 
while the world stands, for you hould : 

First, that the ministerye of Appostles & prophets & evangelistes, 
which were sent to plant & water sundrye Churches, is for euer 
ceased, which is true./ 

You hould that other ministerye then Christe hath ordeyned maie 
not be comunicated with, & this is described (saie you), Eph: 4, 
where (besides the former nowe expired) are onely pastors & 
teachers, & this is (saie you) Christes vnalterable ordinance, &c.. 



[f Witnes a litle 
pamphlett in- 
tituled A Dis- 
scription of the 
Visible Church, 
printed 1589, 
where to the 
visible Churches 
are ascribed the 
priuiledges of the 
Catholick Church 
& a later pamph- 
lett called Posi- 
tions of a True 
Church, from the 
20 article to 29, 
contrary to it 
selfe in other 
articles as 35 & 
the end of 39 
article. 3 



[Mr Ainsworth's 
Positions con- 
cerning a True 
Church, article 
39 in the later 
part of it.] 



76 



AN ANSWER TO 



[Mr Barow his 
conference with 
Mr Egerton] 



to which onelie the blessing is promised, all others (saye your 
fellowes) are antichristian./ 

You hould that there can be noe true pastors or teachers but 
such as be called by the free election of that Church to which 
they must minister./ 

That since the apostacye of Antichrist there can be no true 
Church that hath this power of calling a minister but such as is 
gathered by the doctrine & ministerye of the word & drawen 
into an holy covenant with God voluntarelye./ 
*Answer Nowe, yf egge & bird be distroyed, I meane Church & ministerye, 
as you imagine, & the one cannott be without the other, riddle & 
tell me which shall be first, & where we shall beginne, whether at 
the bird or att the egg, whether at the ministerye or at the 
Church ? Not at the Church, for that must be gathered by a 
ministerye of God's appoyntment, not at the ministerye, for 
there can be none but pastors & teachers, & these cannott exercise 
a ministerye without a calling, nor haue a calling but from a true 
Church, which must not be compelled by the maiestrate, but 
gathered by doctrine of the word into a voluntarye covenant 
with God./ If you sale that till the Churches be gathered, there 
male be another ministerye then that of Appostles, prophets, 
evangelistes, pastors, or teachers, then you confes Christ hath 
not taken order for all those kinds of ministeryes which should 
be needfull for the gathering together of all the saintes, con- 
trarye to Ephe. 4, by your selues alleadged, & that there male 
be some other ministery lawfully e & profitablie vsed, then he 
hath ordeyned, which you denye./ 

Looke about you well & see that you are wrapped vp in your 
owne cobweb, & eyther must breake it & lett the flie goe, or be 
swept awaie with it & her. Nowe God giue you a wise hearte to 
consider this well, & thus I come to your second argument: 



*Mr Robinson Secondlie, St Andrewes hath not the liber tie eyther to enioye 
anye minister though neuer so holye, or to remoue anie though 
never so prophane, but at the will of the Bishop, theire ^ their 
minister's spirituall lord./ 

*Answer They cannot enioye him without the Bishop's consent, therefore 
they did not freelye chose him. It followes not, for a man male 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



11 



choose her voluntarelye to be his wife, whome he cannott enioye 
without consent of others. The Lord Maior of London cannott 
exercise his office whether the King's Maiestie will or noe, yett 
the cittye hath the free choise of him. Approbacyon & election 
are two thinges, Sir, nor is the freedome of election taken awaye 
by referrence to approbacion./ Againe to sale they cannott 
turne of their ministers without the Bishop's consent, therefore 
they haue nott a free choise of him, is as one should sale, A man 
cannott put awaye his wife without the consent of the la we, 
maiestrate, or Churche, noe not for anye faulte, therefore he had 
not his free choise of her, by which reason also one male as well 
proue that noe member of anye Church hath his free election of 
his minister, because he can neyther enioye nor remove the same, 
but by the will of the greater parte of that congregation./ 
Secondly, I denie your assertion, for St Andrewes (having the 
right of choosing) maie by the constitucyon of the Churches of 
England & by course of lawe enioye anie good minister it shall 
choose, whether the Bishop will or noe, yf they choose such an 
one as is without exception in the eye of the lawe, & maie remoue 
anie one whether the Bishop will or noe, yf he be subiect to such 
exceptions as the lawes haue adiudged worthie such a punish- 
ment./ 

But it seemes you thinke the Churches haue no hbertye, vnles 
without reference to anie cannons, officers, or anie others, they 
maie at their pleasure vnsadle their riders that should gouerne 
them, which libertie to the multitude of fraile men were worse 
then want of it, & to the ministery a miserable vasseladge, of 
which some of your predecessores haue had experience, your self 
maie & drinke as you haue brewed./ 
Thus much to your argument./ 

As touching the title of spirituall lord, which you marke the 
Bishop withall, by which also some of your sorte would proue 
the Bishops to be antichristian, as takeing vpon them that 
spirituall lordship ouer the Church which is proper to Christe. 
It is needfull to beseech you not to abuse the Lord's poore people 
or your selues anie more with ambiguityes or captions of words 
as herein you doe, for because the comon vse of speech ^ calles 
them lords spirituall for distinction from those barones or lords 



\y[x Browne and 
Mr Harrison & 
now lately (as I 
heare) Mr 
Smith.]] 



[Mr Johnson in 
his 2 reason 
against 

hearing the minis- 
ters of England, 
page 21.3 

\y As the preface 
of some actes of 
Parliament 
alledged by Mr 
Johnson.] 



78 AN ANSWER TO 

whose imployment is not in spirituall or ecclesiasticall affaires, 
you snatch at the phrase & turne it to a cleane other meaning, as 
spirituall lord importeth one which ruleth in the spiritt or con- 
scyence which is proper to Christe. Nowe me thinkes you cannott 
but knowe that their lordship is a mere temporall honor not 
necessarelye anexed to their bishoprickes but distinctly super- 
added by the king, of whome they hould it as a seuerall thing./ 
Nowe to saie they are for their office spirituall & they are lords, 
therefore they are (in your sence) spirituall lords is a poore 
[t a diiiisis ad sophisticall tricke,t by which a man maie proue that you are 
coniuncta.2 also a master teacher which is proper to Christ, for you are a 
master & teacher, therefore you are a master teacher, or you are 
lohn & you are the Baptist of your congregacyon, therefore you 
are lohn the Baptist./ And yf, because noe creature maie par- 
take Christes titles in that sense in which they are proper to 
him, you fansie that noe man maie beare the same titles in anie 
[Nat. 2^. 8. g. sense, I praie you take heed that noe man call you master, that 
^°J your children call you not father, that you admitt no minister 

to be called doctor or teacher, because these be proper titles 
which Christ assumes to himself, forbidding all others to bear 
them. Indeed, he forbids all others to beare them in such a 
sense as he claimes them in, but not otherwise, & so in the 
rest./ 

Fynallye, you should knowe that the Bishops of England profes 
not to haue anie power of making lawes to bynd the conscyence, 
but ahhorre that as antichristian, nor doe prof essedlie vnder- 
take in externall gouerment anie more then by lawe of the na- 
tyon is committed to them, which is noe more lording ouer the 
Churches then in anie forme of gouerment is gyuen to the minis- 
ters therof . Howeuer, all haue not so much put into their hands 
as our Bishops haue./ 

If in respect of their wealth & dignitie they forgett them selues, 
their cheifest honor, & their brethren, & take to much pompe & 
pride vpon them, I wish noe more to excuse their sinne therein 
then the pride that I haue found in myne owne hearte, but 
without flatterye to them I must needs saie to you, that you and 
your fellowes show more spirituall lordlines & masterlynes in 
iudginge, censuring, slightinge, dispising, & discommuning the 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



79 



Churches, seruantes, people, & graces of God, then anie prelate 
that euer I knew or heard of excepte the pope, whose ego sum 
solus you haue turned to nos soli sumus, as yf God had sent Mr 
lohnson & you as the fire from heauen & had on earth no true 
visible Church rightlie gathered & constituted in his worship but 
yours at Leyden & his at Amsterdam, whose members are ad- 
mitted vpon a kind of defiance first made to all other the visible 
Churches of Christ as standing in some false worship, &c./ 
Came the Ghospell from you, or came it to you alone ? The 
Lord humble your spiritt, & then your eyes shalbe opened./ 
Come we to your third reason :/ 

ThirdUe, St Andrewes is not possessed of that poore liber tie it * Mr Robinson 

vseth by anye imediate spirituall right from Christ, as the bodye 

from the head, the wife from the husband, but by a symonaicall 

purchase from the patrone, as the most prophane assemblie {in 

the kingdome in which not a man feareth God) might purchase 

it, b° so that spirituall libertye which Christ hath bought with 

his blood, &° wherein all Christians ought to stand fast, they buy 

with a peece of money, committing herein simonie as great as 

Simon did./ 

They haue not their Hbertye of free election immediatlye from *Answer 
Christ but by simonaicall purchase from the patron. Therefore, 
their minister entred not by their free & voluntarye election but 
was thrust vpon them by the patron or Bishop against their will. 
Is not this your argument ? Is it not to confirme your assump- 
tion ? Is it not impertinent theretoe ? for though their election 
were simonaicall & voyd, yet might it be voluntarye. Many 
thinges make frustrate free elections, but nothing takes awaye 
freedom in electing but delusion or force./ 
But yf it serue not to confirme your assumption for which it is 
brought, it maye seeme to serue your maine purpose, which is to 
showe the vnlawfuU entrance of the minister. Lett vs therefore 
examine the truth & weight of it to that intent also, alwayes re- 
membred that yf this argument haue anie strength in it, it 
showes that you haue weaklie affirmed the high & holie waye of 
the Lord for the ministers' entrance to be the free choise of that 
Church vnto which they doe serue, seyng ncwe you finde that a 



8o AN ANSWER TO 

free choise is not suflScient thereto, vnles the Church hould that 
libertie ymediatlye from Christ, &c./ 

Nowe to examine the waight of your argument./ It behoueth 
first, to consider that ould distinction of ius ad rem & ius in re. 
The Church of St Andrewe hath right vnto anie libertie which 
Christ hath giuen everye particuler Church eo nomine immedi- 
atlye from Christ, but ius in re, or possession of all her libertyes, 
she hath not imediatHe nor is necessary she should haue, for 
though title vnto her endowmentes must euer be immediate be- 
cause that title yssues onelye out of the purchase & guifte of her 
Lord, yett actuall possession male admitt the mediation of an 
administrator & in manie thinges must, as for example, the 
Church hath right vnto the sacramentes as scales of her covenant 
with God imediatlie from Christ, & yett hath she not the vse of 
this right immediatly from Christ, but by the mediation of a 
lawfull minister. She hath right vnto the Ubertie of worshipping 
God at anye tyme or in anie place immediatlie from Christes 
purchase, but the exercise of this right touching the particuler 
tyme & place of meetyng to worship shee hath not imediatlye 
from him, but by mediation of the magistrate in whose domin- 
ions she is or her owne officers or orders./ 

So in the case of electing & ordeyning ministers, the right vnto 
them depends immediatlie on Christ his will & Testament, but 
the vse of this right is not immediate nor can be, in asmuch as 
not Christ himself but some forme of election or ordination doth 
put the Church into possession of this benefitt./ 
If you obiect that yet the Churches male not (touching their pos- 
session of this right) depend vpon anie power without themselues, 
I answere first, that yf it be within themselues, yett it is nott im- 
mediatlye vpon Christ but in the former respect, & secondlie, 
that this is a meere fansie made out of your braines to cast of all 
interest (not of Bishops alone) but of sinods, maiestrates, or anie 
other then your selues in the election & ordinacyon of ministers, 
& is directlie contrarye to the examples which we finde in the 
scriptures foremencioned, wherein we finde ho we the Appostles 
& evangeUstes did appointe elders to the Churches which could 
not haue beene in anie calling lawfull, yf your conceyte of hould- 
ing all our rightes immediatUe from Christ were true, for the 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 8 1 

Appostles were not Christ, nor did those Churches posses their 
ministers immediatlie from Christ, and yett lost not their title 
theretoe nor changed their tenure./ 

And yf you will not be contentious, you must confes that election 
is rather a meanes of possession then eyther title or thing itself 
purchased by Christ, for that thing is a ministerye to attend vpon 
the Church. Now, as all the thinges which Christ hath gyuen 
vnto his Church are held immediatly vpon him, so the convey- 
ance & possession of the thinges, yea euen of the spirituall graces, 
is mediate ordinarelie as of the Ghospell & sacramentes, &c., & 
why not ministers ? But you fare as one that will not take his 
father's legacy at the hands of anie executor or administrator, 
because he hath right vnto it by his father's onelie guifte, not 
descerning a testator from an executor, a guifte from the ad- 
ministracyon./ 

Wheras you adde {that the Church should stand fast in that which 
Christ hath purchased) , it is ill applied to this case of the manner 
of election, vnles you could proue that this is such a liber tye as 
Christ hath purchased with his blood, which you ought not once 
to imagine, seing the contrary to this was noe parte of her bondage 
before his commyng, for he purchased Ubertie in those thinges 
onlye in which his people were before imbondaged, that is from 
sinne, death, the curse & rigor of the lawe, & yoake of externall 
rites & ceremonies, which were then necessarye to be obserued./ 
If beyond these thinges you shall tie her for conscyence' sake to 
obseruacyons not prescribed by him, you doe not mainteyne her 
libertyes, but vnder the name therof put her into bondage./ 
If the manner of election had beene given to the Churches to be 
held immediatlie vppon Christ as you suppose, & that St. An- 
drewes had for money bought of the vsurpacyon & incumbrance 
of the patron as of a false titler, this doth not make her owne title 
from Christ to be void, quia vtile non tollitur ah invtile, noe more 
then the true title of anie man's right is lost when he doth to- 
gether with his owne conioyne & pretend such other weake 
titles as he has bought in for his quiet. They which buy of the 
Turke their libertye to worship God aright lose not the Ubertye 
which Christ hath given them there vnto./ 
But saie you, this is simonie, as greate as Simon^s was./ Simonie 



82 



AN ANSWER TO 



[Caietan in 
Sum. Tho. . , 
Sum. Angel. & 
others.3 * 



& as greate as Simon's was ? Surelye eyther your eyes or myne 
are not matches, not myne yf this be simonye like Simon's, not 
youres yf it be not./ Nowe lett vs see what simonie is, & what 
it was in Simon of whome it is so called, & then we shall see 
howe like this apple is to that oyster./ 

Simonie is the buying & selling of a spirituall thing, sayth Caietan, 
or that which is anexd to a spirituall thing, sale others./ 
This in Simon was a desire to buy a spirituall & supernaturall 
facultie by sale whereof he might make money./ 
Nowe yf the right of presentacyon or patronage be neyther a 
spirituall thing in it self nor imediatlye anexed to a spirituall 
thing as the minister's maintenance is to his ministerye, then can 
it not be simonie to buy or sell it. Nowe neuer man vnderstood 
the right of patronage to be a spirituall thing or properlie & 
imediatlye anexed to a spirituall thing. And howe farre the 
buying of a patronage is from Simon's sinne lett vs consider./ 
Simon would haue bought a mere spirituall facultie. The parish 
of St Andrewes buy a meer externall & legall title of naming a 
fitt man for their choice./ Simon would haue bought this spirit- 
uall thing to make a temporall profi&tt of it. These men buy a 
temporall thinge to reape a spirituall profitt therebye./ 
Simon would haue for money that which noe man can compas, 
basely e conceyting the heauenlye guifte./ 

These men buy for money that which you sale anie parish in the 
land might possebUe buy for money./ Nowe looke on them to- 
gether & see howe they resemble one another./ 
To giue something for avoydance of an vniust vexacyon or im- 
pediment is held no simonie, no not in case of a benefice. The 
sharpest whippers of this fault neuer drewe the buying of a pat- 
ronage into the note of simonie, but what will not affections doe 
yf through them as it were through colored glasse we shall be- 
hould thinges & soe esteeme them./ 

If you giue money for the place you meete to worship God in, is 
it simonie ? If your people gyue you money for preaching to 
them, praying with them, is it simonie ? If for the bread & wine 

* This note is partly illegible. It refers to Cajetan's commentary on the 
Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. The reference in the third line is mani- 
festly to the Summa itself. 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



83 



vsed at the Lord's table the communicantes giue money, is it 
simonie ? And yett these thinges come as neare to Simon's 
sinne as the buying of a patron's title, that they maye choose 
their owne minister./ 

Wherefore, this not beyng simonie, nor forfeyture or renuncia- 
tion of such right as you saie Christ hath gyuen his Churches, 
but only a remoue of an incumbrance, it restes that the minister 
of St Andrew's was freelie chosen by his owne congregacyon, 
which you denyed, & therefore (by your owne rule) is (in respect 
of his entrance) a lawfull minister vnlawfullie and sinnefully for- 
saken of you more sinnefully traduced, of which God giue you 
grace to repent in tyme./ 
Nowe come we to your sixt & last argument for your separacion :/ 



Where the power of the Lord lesus Christ for excomunication &" 
the vse of the keyes is wanting, there I maie not stand a member 
or haue comunion./ 

You doe confound the vse of the keyes & excomunication, as if 
they were one thing or allwayes conioyned, forgetting that by 
the key of knowledg & of doctrine men are lett in or shutt out 
of God's kingdome, bound or loosed in earth & in heauen without 
excomunication, whose vse is oneHe to exclude the inordinate 
members from externall comunion with the Churches./ 
Which thinges yf you still hould to be one, then must you yeild 
backe the key of excomunication vnto the ministers onelie, to 
whome (& not vnto the people) Christ committed those keyes of 
kingdome of heauen./ 

But haveing noted this confusion in your proposicion lett vs see 
howe you proue that where excomunication wants, a man maie 
haue noe comunion in the worship of God./ 

The want of this power argues the Church not to he Christes 
Church, for Christ hath giuen this power to his Churche. Math. 
18. 15. 16. 17./ 

I denye your consequence, for 

Christ hath giuen pastors and teachers to his Church, therefore, 

whensoeuer theise are wanting, the Church ceaseth, or is not. 



[Mr]* 
Robinson 
[his vi Argu- 
ment [| 

*Answer 



[Math. 16. 19. 
loh. 22. 23.] 



* Robinson 
[It was written 
[by] Mr Robin- 
son his, but 
should no doubt 
haue bene this 
power, & so I 
make it.] 

*Answer 



84 



AN ANSWER TO 



[t r. Cor. 3. Christe hath giuen all f thinges to his Church, therefore yf it 

versibus vltimis.] want anye thing, it is not his Church./ 

Christ hath geven sacramentes to his Church, therefore yf it 
want eyther of them at anie tyme by anie meanes of persecution, 
it is not his true Church./ 

God hath geven a man two eares, two eyes, two hands, two legges, 
therefore yf he want anie of these he is no true man. From the 
want of a parte to the denyall of the whole is noe good argument. 
Lett vs see yf the next be better./ 

* Robinson // is want of a meanes of gayning sinners to God 6* of saluation, 
I. Cor. 5. 4. 5; Math. 18. 75./ 
*Answer Of regaining, not properlie of gainyng, for excomunication 
bringes not in strangers, but maie recouer some that are out of 
the waie, so this is a meanes of saluation, but onelie to the inordi- 
nate which are not a lawe to themselues, not vnto all. And the 
want of it is a want (not of all meanes or the oneUe meanes) but 
of a meanes, therefore we maie not ioyne with the Churches in 
the vse of the other meanes of saluation. Doe you not see ? 
Where anie meanes are wantyng, there we maie hould no fellow- 
ship with the Churches. And in conscience haue you all the 
meanes of salvacyon in your assembUe or those onelye that be 
simplie necessary ? want you nothing ? neuer Church but Lao- 
dicea wanted nothing. Rev. 3./ Want of anie thing needfull 
proues a mayme but not a dissolucion of the Churches, & yf you 
think comunion maie not be held where anye meanes are wantyng, 
make hast to heauen for noe Church on earth will enterteyne 
you./ 

If you replie that this is not onelie a meanes but a necessarye 
meanes, I answere. It is not simplie necessarye, for then noe man 
could be saved but he must be excomunicate, nor necessarye to 
anie but such as be vnrulie & out sitt other meanes, nor abso- 
luteUe necessarye to these, beyng possible that without excomuni- 
cation they maie be recouered & often seene./ Let vs see your 
3 reason./ 

[Mr] * Robinson // makes the Church Babilon, an habitacion of devills, an hould of 
eueryefoule spiritt &" a cage of euerye vncleane 6* hatefull byrd./ 
Rev. 18. 2.1 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



85 



The want of excomunication whollye doth vndoubtedlye hazard *Answer 

the puretye of the Churches while the impunetye of some em- 

bouldens others to polute themselues; vppon which respect the 

Appostle commanded the excomunication of the incestious [in] 

Corinth. Wherefore the want of it must needs be confessed a 

greyvous maime & the abuse of it no lesse, which God will cer- 

teynlie revendg vpon those that stop his waie & serue their owne 

turnes of his holie ordinances./ 

But to saie it make the Church Babilon, &c., is an ouerreach of 

a passionate or vnadvised minde, some men in commendyng or 

dispraising neuer thinke enough to be spoken, till they haue said 

to much, yett to proue this fiery assertion you cyte a text, Rev. 

18. 2. I marvaile you feare not to prostitute the sacred word of 

God vnto your desires. Doth Rev. 18. 2 proue that the want of 

excomunication makes the Church Babilon, &c. Yf not, you 

haue taken the name of God in vaine, whose word you abuse./ 

This place speakes not of pollucyon by sinne or sinners as you 

imagine, but of Babilon's (that is Rome's) punishment & ruine, 

saying Babilon is false ,t &c. And to expresse the horrible des- [f In the time 

solacion therof doth vse such phrases, as the prophettes did to present for to 

expresse the vtter dessolacyon of other places, signifying that it . , . ". 

should not be inhabited anie more of men, but of divills, dragons, vsed in scrip- 

satyres, vultures, scrich oules, & such other like vncoth (& by ture.3 

the law) vncleane beastes & birds as vse to dwell in solitarye 

places, where noe man frequenteth. See Isay 13. 20. 21. 22 & 

cap. 34. II. 13. 14. 15; ler. 50. 39. 40; also see Brightman ^ on 

Revel. 18. 2./ 

Secondlye, yf the place had spoken of polucion as it doth not, 

would it followe that the onehe want of excomunicacyon had 

beene the cause of it ? might not the abuse of it doe as much 

hurte as the want ? Verehe, Rome neuer wanted the power of 

excomunication but surfetted with it rather, & polluted it self 

rather by misguiding then by wantyng that keye. Come we 

therefore to your fourth & last reason, for these three are nought 

worth./ 

^ Thomas Brightman (1562-1607). The work referred to appears to be his 
Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, idest Apocalypsis . . . illustrata, 1609, 2d ed. 161 2. 



86 



AN ANSWER TO 



[Mr] * Robinson 
*Answer 

[2.] 
[3.] 



pt seemes Mr 
George lohnson 
thought his 
brother & 
Church of Ams- 
tredam could 
and did abuse it 
grossely by his 
Discourse of 
some troubles 
and excommuni- 
cations, printed 
1603.] 



It bindes me inevitablie to defile my self in manie grevious sinnes 
against God in acknowledging them his children by saying Oure 
Father with them who by their workes are aparantlye yett the 
children of the devill. lo. 8. 44./ 
If this be true you haue reason to separate, but yf this be false & 
fantastical!, then your sinne remaines. Let vs therefore ex- 
amine./ 

First, whether it (that is the want of excomunication) bindes 
you inevitabhe to defile your self. 

2"«, whether those that deserue to be excomunicate be the 
devill's children & maye be soe reputed. 

3''^, whether the saying Oure Father with such defiles a man or 
noe. In all which if it appeare to you that you haue erred, you 
will (I hope) be readye to reforme your self & giue glorye to God. 
Suppose you were defiled with the societye of the devilles chil- 
dren. Is the want of excomunication, thinke you, the onehe 
cause of their beyng in the Churches ? Why maie not the neglect 
of it as at Corynth, i. Cor. 5. 2, or abuse as among the lewes 
who cast out the children of God, lo. 9, effect the same ill ? And 
are you sure that this power cannott be abused or neglected by 
the true Churches of God ? Or yf it maie, then doe you vn- 
wiselye ascribe that effect to the onelie want of excomunication, 
which maie arise from the abuse or neglect of that power. Where 
it is ?/ 

Agayne, do you imagine that excomunication castes all the devill's 
children out of God's Church, where it is rightlie vsed ? What 
hipocrites and all ? Or are hipocrites none of the devilles chil- 
dren ? Yf neyther of both, then the best vse of excomunication 
never assures vs the election of all the devilles children. And 
then it is absurd to sale that the want therof byndes you to 
pollucyon in respect of the presence of the devill's children with 
whome you must be present as long as there be anie hipocrites 
in the Church, whether excomunication be wanting or noe./ 
Secondlie, you take it that all such grosse offenders as ought to 
be excomunicate are apparantUe the devill's children. You 
meane not onelie in deed so, but in sight soe, which is a damnable 
opinion & (if you sticke to it) an heresie./ 
For you take it as yf excomunication were not of anie other vse 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



87 



then to cast the devill's children out of God's Church. Think 
you Mr lohnson tooke his father & brother to be the devill's 
children when he did excomunicate them ? Verely, methinkes 
his harte should ake to haue professed that opinion of them./ 
But what euer he & you thinke, sureHe Paule thought not so of 
excomunication, but that it was sometimes a medecyne to re- 
couer the children of God out of their sinnes & to make others 
take heed, i. Cor. 5. 5; who also bids the Thessalonians to 
admonish him as a brother whome they might not conuers with 
familiarly, & forbids them to count him as an enemye. Yf they 
must count him not an enemye but a brother, then not a childe 
of the devill but a child of God, though separated for his punish- 
ment from the familer societie of the saintes, as good Miriam was 
from the congregacion of God. Numb. 12. 
Knowes not Mr Robinson that the deare saintes of God male not 
onelie fall into but possibly lie in some grosse sinne which male 
deserue excomunication, who yett neuer become the children 
of the devill ? Verelie, God male make you knowe to your cost, 
as he hath done other of his poore seruantes, & comonlie doth 
those that knowe not howe to restore such as are fallen with the 
spirit of meeknes, considering them selues least they also be 
tempted, whose pride is comonlie curde with poison./ 
But you thinke lo. 8. 44 will warrant you to take those that stand 
in anie notorious sinne to be the children of the devill, because 
Christ so calleth certeyne of the lewes. And are you as Christ, 
whose eyes * are as a flame of fire; who needed ^ not that anie 
should tell him what was in man ; who came with a •= f anne in his 
hand, that lohn Baptist had not; who knewe from the begin- 
ning '^ who should betraie him & that one of the twelue was a 
devill./ 

Or haue you that discerning spiritt of Peter to finde out Ananias ^ 
in the darke & Simon ^ Magus his hearte, or of Paule to knowe 
Ehmas «= to be the child of the devill & accordingUe to censure & 
to smite ? If not, rise vp and kisse that throne of iudgment with 
blessing, vnto which you haue so vnadvisedlie sitt downe & doe 
not dare (for you are a man & a sinner) to imitate our Lord in 
that which he did as God f or his Appostles, in that which the 
imediate spiritt of God did in them or directed them to doe./ 



[^2. Thess. 3. 14 
& 15 compared 
with I. Cor. 9. 
10. II.] 



[Gal. 6. I.] 



\j Reuel. I. 14.J 
[''loh. 2. 25.] 
["Math. 3. 12.] 
\y loh. 6. 64 et 

70.] 

[" Act. s-] 
['^ Act. 8.] 
[•^Act. 13. 10.] 



[t See Augustine 
vpon that place 
of lo. 8.] 



88 AN ANSWER TO 

It male be obiected that Christ giues such a reason as by which 

anie man maie iudge of others, when he saies they are of the 

devill, because his workes they doe. I answere that Christ 

[* Verses 37, spake not simpUe of euerye evill worke, nor meanes that euerye 

4°. worke of the devill in anie man's hand is a note of the devilles 

'^ ' childe, for then euerye sinne open or secrete must be a marke 

44] of a childe of the devill, seeing euerye sinne originallye is the 

devilles worke, & then I praie you, where will you finde a childe 

of God ? 

But Christe here spake speciallye of one kinde of worke, that is, 

their resistance of him the sonne of God & Saviour sent vnto 

them, & that with an hatefull & murtherous mynde, wherein they 

resembled Satan in his two prime qualities, lying & murther. 

Nowe, yf you thinke anie outward vnrighteousnes maie be as 

sure a marke of the devill's children as a wilfull resistance of the 

Gospell, you are wonderfullie wide./ 

It maie be instanced, that Christ speakes generalHe of sinne. 

verse 34. He that committeth sinne is the seruant of it, and 

therefore that when anie man Hues in anie knowen sinne we maie 

iudge him the childe of the devill. I answere first, that yf Christ 

by sinne (so called in generall) meanes not that particuler kinde 

which he after expresseth, as it seemes he doth, yett is it not truehe 

to be inferred that euerie man is the child of the devill, that is at 

all imbondaged in some sinne, as Paules complainte, Ro. 7. 23, 

manifesteth, but onlie such as are merelie subiected theretoe. 

Nowe there is a greate difference betwixt a seruant of God taken 

prisoner & one that hath submitted himself vnto the enemie, yett 

are bothe in some bondage, for ignorance, custome of tyme or 

people, passion, infirmities, & such other occasions maie possibHe 

hould a child of God vnder some open sinne, as were the holie 

patriarkes in poligamie, Asa & others in the suffrance of high 

places, &c. So then it is not euerye committing or lyving in sinne 

[t Rom. 6. 16. that argues a man to be simplie a seruant of sinne, but (as Paul f 

I. loh. 3. 8. sayth) the comitting of a man's self vnto sinne to obey it, or 

ee anc 10 bgyng ouercome of it, 2. Peter 2. ig, which our Savior & St 
this point.J ,. ■. 

lohn call (in a specyall sense) the doynge of sinne. And howe it 

is that Christ sayth of these lewes, You are of your father the 

devill, for his lustes will ye doe, verse 44; marke you his lustes 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 



89 



to showe that they gaue themselues ouer to the devilles pleasure 
to be ledd at his will, & will yee doe to note in them a desperate 
resolucyon not to doe other wise, which resolucyon, seing no man 
can knowe vnles he knowes the heart as Christ did, no man maie 
dare nor can (without more then pharisaicall pride) affyrme of 
anie man professing the fayth of Christ that he is the child of 
the devill; for vnles it be in that case of sinne against the holie 
Ghost which is hard to be iudged & vnpossible to be cured, the 
Church cannott iudge anie man to be anathema maranatha, or 
the child of the devill, which sinne is not anie particuler vnright- 
eousnes, but an apostacye from the fayth of Christe after a man 
hathe beene convinced thereof in his conscyence, & tasted the 
good word of God, &c. Heb. 6. 4. 5./ 

Howe it is that the Appostle Paule doth admitt that greater ex- 
comunication, i. Cor. 16. 22, in this onelie case of not louyng 
the Lord lesus, which is not easilie knowne, & St. lohn, i. Epis. 
5. 16. & 17, doth not only distinguish the sinne vnto death from 
all particuler kindes of vnrighteousnes, in saying (all vnrighteous- 
nes is sinne, but there is a sinne not vnto death), but doth also 
teach that a man (professing the fayth) is to be held a brother & 
to be prayed for as a brother in anie sinne saue that which is vnto 
death, in which prayers are in vayne because it is vnpossible for 
such an one to be renewed by repentance./ Therefore, you haue 
vtterlie mistaken your ground of lo. 8. 44, while from thence you 
thinke it lawfull for vs who cannott descerne as Christe did the 
finall obstinacy e of men, to iudge euery man a childe of the 
devill, not onelie in case of resisting the truth of which he spake, 
but in personall transgressions of which he spake not, or not 
simplie, but with respecte of meere vassalage theretoe./ 
If it be demaunded to what end then the scripture tells vs that 
no vnrighteous person shall inherit the kingdome of God, &c., I 
answere, first, that all such places must be vnderstood of finall 
perseuerance therin, els men once fallen can neuer be recouered, 
& secondlie that these are necessarye admonishmentes to euerye 
man that he might looke into his owne hearte in secrete, not 
rules whereby we (that cannott knowe with what ignorance or 
remorse a man possesses his sinne) should sett the sentence of 
condempnacion vpon others, for what art thou that iudgest an 



[Vide lunius: 
Disputationes de 
disciplina eccle- 
siastica, preside 
lunio, 1600, to 
alter Thes. 17.] 



[Hebr. 6. 10. 
10. 26.] 



90 AN ANSWER TO 

other man's seruant ? And why forgett we that the humble pub- 
lican went awaie iustified rather then the proud pharesie./ 
[Rom. 14. If it should yet be obiected in mayntenance of your censorious 
Luke 18. conceyte, that Christ biddeth vs hould him as a publican or an 
heathen which should not heare the Church, & that therefore in 
other cases then that sinne against the hoHe Ghost we male law- 
fullye iudge incorrigable sinners to be the children of the devill, 
I answere, first, that this is after all admonition, and euen the 
Churches censure is dispised & therefore to your case could bring 
noe releife, in as much as you hould that noe man in the English 
Churches hath yet outsitt that last admonition of the Church, 
which is in your opinion wholie wantyng./ 

And secondlie, I answere that Christ doth nott allowe in that 
case to hould men the children of the devill, but onelie to for- 
beare all priuate & familiar conuersacion with them (except in 
reserued cases, as of husband & wife, &c.), as they did of heathens 
& of pubHcans with whome the lewes held it vnlawfuU to eate & 
drinke. For yf you think Christe allowed them to iudge all pub- 
Hcanes to be the children of the devill, you forgett the parable 
of the pubUcane, Luke 18, & ho we the pharesies are condemned 
for condemning them to much./ 

I conclude, therefore, that though you maie see such faultes in 
men as doe deserue excomunication, yett vnles in that rare case 
of a sinne vnto death you neyther can, nor maie iudge anie man 
adioyned to the Church a childe of the devill; yett doubt I nott 
but the devill maie haue some children in St Andrewes of Nor- 
wich as well as in your assemblies at Leyden and Amsterdam./ 
So then, neyther doth excomunication cast all the devilles chil- 
dren out of God's Church, neyther are they all the devill's ap- 
parent children which are worthelie excomunicated or deserue 
soe to bee. Nowe lett vs come to your 3 principle included in the 
same proposicion & see whether saying Oure Father with such as 
be notorious sinners defile a Christian./ 

You meane not that the verie saying of those wordes Oure 
Father, &c., shall defile you, although to vse that prayer of 
Christe as a prayer is held among you a pollucyon (nowe they are 
deyntilie pure whome such praiers as this polutes), but it is not 
saying those words, but in that you father the devill's children 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 9 1 

vpon God by calling God their and your owne Father in common. 

And what sale you then to your owne assemblie or Mr lohnson's ? 

Are you sure there is not one childe of the devill, not one ludas, 

not one hipocrite amonge them all ? Dare you saie it vpon your 

conscyence ? I knowe you dare nott. And are you defiled with 

all the sinnes of all those hipocrites whome you father vpon God 

in saying Our Father ? Noe forsooth, whye not ? Because they 

are hipocrites & you knowe them not. O, they are the devill's 

children, but because you know it not, you male saie God is their 

Father. Why then, beHke it is not the fathering of the devill's 

children vpon God that defiles you but your knowledg of it, for 

yf it were the thing it self, it must defile, whether you knewe it 

or not, as a pestilentiall ayre infectes a man whether he knowe it 

to be pestilentiall or knowe it not./ 

On the other side, belike you knowe that an open offendor is the 

childe of the devill. Are you sure of that, Mr Robinson ? Knowe 

you not that manie of God's children committ open offences & 

some of the devill's doe not ? But there is appeareance. Ap- 

peareance ? What ? that a sinnefuU Christian is noe Christian, 

or that he is a sicke Christian ? If he be noe Christyan but a 

childe of Satan, why admonish you him ? If he be a dead man, 

not a leper, why exclude you him ? Why rather doe you not 

bury him ?/ 

But yf you cannot knowe by anie particuler sinne (except that 

against the holie Ghoste), that anie man professing the fayth is 

the childe of the devill (as hath beene showed), then shall you 

be noe more polluted by calling God the Father of an open sinner 

then of a secrete hipocrite. Wherefore, yf you will keepe your 

rule, you must neuer saie Our Father till you come in heauen, 

where you male be sure to haue none but God's true children to 

beare you companie./ 

But what yf open sinners be God's true children & you will not 

call God Father with them, are you not polluted ? It is not all 

one to denie those that are his, as to afiirme those that are not 

his, to be his children, as it is to iustifie the wicked & condemne [Prouer. 18.] 

the innocent ? 

And yf you feare to call God their Father because it is doubtfull, [This distinction 

why feare you not to denie it beyng doubtfull, for your soule dare their owne Mr 



92 



AN ANSWER TO 



Clifton flyes to, 
page 196, who 
also affirmes the 
lewes to haue 
bene a holy 
people of God, 
not in respect of 
personall sanct- 
ity, but of the 
external! couen- 
ant made with 
their fathers, 
page 24 & 25 et 
page 80.3 



[Rom. 9. 4.] 
[6 Act. 2. 38.'] 



[Isay 63. 16. 17. 
Isay I. 3 and 5. 
7. et ler. 23. 2. 
Thess. 4. 6. 
Ezech. 16. 20. 
21, &C.3 



[fEccle. 7. i{ 



not saie directlie they are the devill's, or yf you dare, you haue 
a venterous soule./ 

Finallie, lett me open to you your mistakeyng, & be not ashamed 
to learne of him that would be glad to learne of you. You forgett 
that God's children are soe and soe called eyther in respect of 
their true estate of his adoption in Christe (which is proper onelie 
to his electe, his secrete ones), or in respecte of that profession of 
covenant with God which they make. Or yf you forgett not that, 
you forgett this, viz., that all oure iudgment in ordinarye is by 
that which is professed, where it becomes vs to acknowledg and 
call those the children of God, whether hipocrites or open off end- 
ores, which haue receyued & reteyne the visible cognizance of 
God's hoUe covenante [?] & worship with his saintes./ 
And in this respect Paule is not affraid to saie that the adoption 
did belong (generalHe) to the lewes; & St Peter, that to them & 
to their seed belonged the promises; and the prophets often euen 
of the transgressing generacyons, that theise yet were the Lord's 
people, as Isay particulerhe in their name sayth to God, Thou 
art our Father, though Abraham knowe vs not, why hast thou 
caused vs to erre, &c. Yea, God himself doth ordinarilye call 
them (in respect of his covenant) his people, his inheritance, even 
when he complaines of them and threatens to cast them of, as 
they (in poynt of disobedience) had done him./ And will you 
still feare least that should pollute you which polluted not the 
holie Appostles & prophettes, nor the holie Maiestie it self ? 
Take heed, Mr Robinson, be not iust ouermuch,t the feare of 
God deliuers from that alsoe./ 

It is a note eyther of a seared conscyence or of great ignorance, 
when a man shrinkes at euery thing as much as at anie thing 
without difference, but in you I perswade me it is but mistakeing, 
which I praie God you maie be willing to discouer & reforme./ 
It restes then, first, that excomunication castes not all the devill's 
children out of God's Church; secondlie, that all which it doth 
or should cast oute are not the devill's children; and thirdlie, 
that noe man is defiled by saying Our Father with those which 
will ioyne with him in the true worship of God; and consequentlie, 
that therefore the want of excomunication in St. Andrewes 
byndes noe man inevitably e to defile himself e as you pretended./ 



JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 93 

And thus much to your foure argumentes brought to proue your 
first proposition, that where excomunication is wanting, a man 
maie haue no communion. Nowe come we to your assumption./ 

But St Andrewes Church wantes this power. 

This you onlye affirme, & this I denie, for that excomunication or 
discomuning of offensiue members by forbearing conuersacyon 
with them, which the Appostle commends to the Churches, i. 
Cor. 5. II, 2. Thes. 3. 14, is in the power of St. Andrewes Church, 
and yf they practize it not, is their owne faulte & shame./ 
Secondlie, that which we call the lesser excomunication or sus- [2.] 
pension from the Lord's table is in the hand of the minister as 
the Churches watchman & officer in that behalf, to be exercised 
on anie ignorant person or notorious sinner./ 

Thirdlie, concerning the greater excomunication, although it be [3.] 
committed as touching the sentence to the Bishop & his assist- 
antes, yett doe the lawes sett downe the generall causes, & the 
parishioners by their officers make presentacion of such offences 
as deserue it. The horrible abuses committed in the cariage of 
this I meane not to excuse, but the constitucion it self is nothing 
see ill./ 

Wherefore, it cannott be said that St Andrewes parish simplie 
wantes the power of excomunication so long as it hath part of 
it in her owne hand, the rest in the hand of her feofees of trust or 
committies, who yf they had care & zeale of God in them to 
ymproue their power to the best, might purge the Churches of 
so much drosse as neyther you should be scandalized & put into 
schisme, nor others perhaps wish, as they doe, to see a change of 
that order./ 

If you replie that in none of these the Church hath power of ex- 
communication in such sorte as it ought, I answere that yet it 
maie not be simpUe denied to haue that power at all, no more 
then we maie be denied to haue anie grace of the Spiritt because 
we haue none in manner or measure as we ought./ 

And finallie, I praie you to consider how excommunicacion is [Read Mr George 
caried in the other Churches, euen those of the separation, & lohnson s booke 
then remember that he that seekes perfection in the Churches ^ ^i^^y^ ' 
on earth eyther in constitucion or in execution maie finde some neede noe more.] 



94 AN ANSWER TO JOHN ROBINSON OF LEYDEN 

nearer it then others, but none in it, & so noe more rest for his 
foote then the doue out of the arke./ 

Thus haue I finished a longe answere, beyng desirous yf God will 
to gyue you satisfaction & vnwilUng to interupt my other oc- 
casions with anie second returnes./ I will not end as you did with 
the name of the devill, beyng (perhaps) loth to salute me 
(which is an vnmannerlye fashion of sundrie of your side), but 
I harteUe commend you to the Lord God of mercye & truth, & 
beseech him to open your eyes that you maie see your errors 
made, & to giue you a true humble spiritt that you maie not be 
ashamed to become wise, and a worthye resolucyon to giue God 
glorye in returning & causing those poore soules that depend 
vpon your lippes to returne, that you maie finde peace in the end 
which in this course I am perswaded you cannott./ And thus 
praying you to passe by anie escapes of the writer with loue, & to 
beleiue that I loue your person for the Lord Christ his sake 
whose wandring seruant I still esteeme you, I end & rest 

Your fellow seruant & loving freind, 
desirous to embrace you in the fel- 
lowship of the Churches of Christ. 
I was willing inough in sundry re- 
spectes to haue lett this answere 
alone after I had finished it, but that 
I heard on euery side of great bragges 
cast out as yf I could not haue 
answered it, which made me send it 
to you that I might not be guiltie of 
hardening them in their sinne, whose 
error I do much bewayle. Farewell./ 



PRINTED AT 

THE HARVARD UNTVERSITV PRESS 

CAMBRIDGE, MASS., U.S.A. 



Harvard Theological Studies 

I. The Composition and Date of Acts. By Charles Cutler Torrey, 
Professor of Semitic Languages in Yale University. 72 pages. 1916. 
$1.00. 

II. The Pauline Idea of Faith in its Relation to Jewish and Hel- 
lenistic Religion. By William Henry Paine Hatch, Professor of 
the Language and Literature of the New Testament in the General 
Theological Seminary, New York. 92 pages. 1917. $1.25. 

HI. Ephod and Ark. By William R. Arnold, Professor of Hebrew in 
Andover Theological Seminary. 170 pages. 1917. $1.75. 

IV. The Gospel Manuscripts of the General Theological Semi- 
nary. By Charles Carroll Edmunds, Professor of the Literature and 
Interpretation of the New Testament in the General Theological 
Seminary, New York, and William Henry Paine Hatch, Professor 
in the Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge. 68 pages. 1918. 
$1.25. 

V. Macarii Anecdota. Edited by G. L. Marriott, Lecturer in the 
University of Birmingham. 48 pages. 1918. $1.25. 

VI. The Style and Literary Method of Luke. By Henry J. Cadbury, 
Lecturer on the New Testament in Andover Theological Seminary. 
205 pages. 1920. $3.00. 

VII. Is Mark a Roman Gospel ? By Benjamin W. Bacon, Professor of 
New Testament Criticism and Interpretation in Yale University. 
106 pages. 1919. $1.25. 

VIII. The Defensor Pacis of Marsiglio of Padua. By Ephraim 
Emerton, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Emeritus, in Harvard 
University. 81 pages. 1920. $1.25. 

IX. An Answer to John Robinson of Leyden by a Puritan Friend, 
now jfirst published from a manuscript of A. D. 1609. By Champlin 
Burrage, sometime Librarian of Manchester College, Oxford, xiv + 
94 pages. 1920. $2.00. 

In press 
The Russian Dissenters. By Frederick C. Conybeare, Hon- 
orary Fellow of University College, Oxford. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




013 996 194 8 • 





1 


^^ 




1 






1 




